Trahan v. Montgomery Elec. & Maint., Inc.

• Decision Date: 04 April 2012
• Docket Number: No. 11–1426.,11–1426.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
• Parties: Shane TRAHAN v. MONTGOMERY ELECTRIC & MAINTENANCE, INC.

87 So.3d 361

Shane TRAHAN
v.
MONTGOMERY ELECTRIC & MAINTENANCE, INC.

No. 11–1426.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana,
Third Circuit.

April 4, 2012.

[87 So.3d 362]

Scott J. Pias, Lake Charles, LA, for Claimant–Appellant, Shane Trahan.

M. Jeremy Berthon, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant–Appellee, Montgomery Electric & Maintenance, Inc.

Court composed of OSWALD A. DECUIR, JIMMIE C. PETERS, and J. DAVID PAINTER, Judges.

PAINTER, Judge.

[3 Cir. 1]Claimant, Shane Trahan, appeals the finding of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) that he failed to carry his burden of proving his lower back and neck symptoms are causally related to the accident that occurred on August 18, 2009 at Montgomery Electric & Maintenance, Inc. (Montgomery). For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS

It is undisputed that on August 18, 2009, while Claimant was in the course and scope of his employment with Montgomery, the wall of a trench in which Claimant was standing collapsed on him, throwing him against the other wall of the trench. He was stuck for a short time, after which a co-worker dug him out. Claimant continued working for Montgomery until September 20, 2009. He did not report the incident until October 2009.

Claimant's average weekly wage was $900.00 and his weekly compensation rate is $546.00. No workers' compensation benefits have been paid. However, Montgomery paid its part of Claimant's health insurance premium until October 2009 and the full amount in November 2009. A hearing was held on October 4, 2011. The WCJ gave oral reasons for her determination that Claimant had not carried his burden of proving a causal connection between the cave-in and his symptoms. Claimant appeals.

DISCUSSION

Claimant asserts that the WCJ erred in failing to apply the presumption that his cervical pain resulted from the incident where he was in reasonably good health as to his cervical region prior to the incident and had an onset of pain shortly thereafter. Further, Claimant asserts that the WCJ erred in failing to accept his uncontradicted testimony as to his condition [3 Cir. 2]where there was nothing of record to cast suspicion on the reliability of his testimony.

A claimant is entitled to a presumption that his or her disability was caused by the accident if before the accident the claimant was in good health but afterwards began having symptoms which continuously manifested. Fluitt v. Christus Health Cent. La., 05–945 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/28/06), 935 So.2d 369,writ denied,06–2302 (La.12/8/06),...