Vincent v. City of New Orleans

• Decision Date: 11 November 1975
• Docket Number: No. 7042,7042
• Citation: 326 So.2d 401
• Parties: Arby J. VINCENT, Jr. v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 401

326 So.2d 401

Arby J. VINCENT, Jr. v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.

No. 7042.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Nov. 11, 1975.

Limited Rehearing Granted, Dec. 9, 1975.

Original Opinion Affirmed On Limited Rehearing, Feb. 6, 1976.

Writ Refused April 9, 1976.

Dodd, Barker, Boudreaux, Lamy & Gardner, Harold J. Lamy, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Blake G. Arata, Philip S. Brooks, City Attys., Jackson P. McNeely, Thomas P. Anzelmo, Sr., Asst. City Attys., New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.

Before STOULIG, BOUTALL and BEER, JJ.

BEER, Judge.

Plaintiff-appellee, Arby J. Vincent, claims workmen's compensation benefits for permanent and total disability alleging that his duties as a firefighter caused, aggravated or accelerated the cardio-vascular disease and angina pectoris which now prevents him from performing his duties. His unrefuted testimony indicates that he was originally employed by the New Orleans Fire Department on March 2, 1958 and was assigned to Engine House No. 9 located in the French Quarter. He remained at that assignment for approximately seven and one half years before being assigned to less arduous duties at New Orleans International Airport. His testimony and that of Lester F. Curreau, a co-employee, indicates that Engine House No. 9 was an extremely busy station with frequent alarms. Both men testified that they were usually called to at least one fire per day and that they were often involved in the extinguishing of mattress fires which, by their nature, subjected the firefighters to the probability of some smoke inhalation. These instances sometimes required the administration of oxygen to the affected firefighter. The duties associated with assignment to Engine House No. 9 were described by plaintiff as extremely physical and strenuous.

Apparently the first possible sign of any heart ailment suffered by plaintiff occurred about 1965, approximately seven years after the commencement of Vincent's service as a firefighter. This was originally diagnosed as chest congestion. The first diagnosis of angina pectoris was made in December, 1972.

The matter before us primarily concerns the extent of the protection afford by Act 337 of 1968 before its amendment by Act 30 of 1975. ¹ It provides:

'Any disease or infirmity of the heart or lungs which develops during a period of employment in the classified fire service in the State of Louisiana shall be classified as a disease or infirmity connected with the employment. The employee affected, or his survivors, shall be entitled to all rights and benefits to which one suffering an occupational disease is entitled as service connected in the line of duty, regardless of whether the fireman is on duty at the time he is stricken with the disease or infirmity. Such disease or infirmity shall be presumed, prima facie, to have developed during the employment whenever same is manifested at any time after the first five years of employment.'

In construing this provision, the trial court found that a fireman who experiences disabling heart disease after five years service as a firefighter, was, on these findings alone, entitled to be compensated under the Act. The trial court expressed disagreement with the interpretation placed upon the Act in Bates v. Bituminous Gas Corp., 266 So.2d 556 (La.App.3rd Cir. 1972).

Act 337 of 1968 classifies any heart or lung disease that develops five years subsequent to commencement of employment as an occupational disease and expressly provides for Presumption of development of the disease during employment. As noted in Bates, supra, this Act is consistent with a trend to provide occupational disease coverage to firemen for respiratory and heart diseases. We conclude, nevertheless, that the legislative intent was not to extend the protection created by the Act to the degree reached by the trial court.

We take note of those cases interpreting the occupational disease statute which provide that a workmen suing under R.S. 23:1031.1 does not have to prove an accident, but only that the disease he suffers resulted from the nature of the work performed. LaCoste v. J. Ray McDermott, 250 La. 43, 193 So.2d 779 (1967); Rawls v. Dixie Drilling Co., 161 So.2d 417 (La.App.2nd Cir. 1964), writs refused, 246 La. 78, 163 So.2d 357.

However, when it enacted Act 337 of 1968, the legislature apparently chose not to track the pertinent language of R.S. 23:0131.1, but instead stated that heart disease 'shall be classified as a disease or infirmity Connected with the employment.' We conclude, therefore, that the jurisprudence interpreting R.S. 23:1031.1 is not directly applicable.

By providing that the 'disease is presumed prima facie, to have developed during the employment,' the legislature did, we believe, effectively shift the burden of proof to the employer who became obliged to prove the lack of causation between the disease and the employment. This shifting of the burden of proof obviously imposes an onerous task upon the employer, but this was, we believe, intended by the legislature. Our reading of the statute convinces us that a rebuttable presumption exists that the nature of the work caused the disease. Accordingly, the employer bears the difficult burden of proving otherwise and unless affirmative which is, admittedly, very difficult, which is, admittedly, very difficut, then the presumption requires that the disabled fireman be entitled to coverage under the Act.

Dr. Jack P. Ruli testified that the work performed by plaintiff could have been an aggravating factor with respect to the heart disease that Vincent now suffers. He stated that there is a direct correlation between the physical and emotional stress of plaintiff's job and his acknowledged disability. Dr. Ruli was the only physician called to testify in this matter. The City of New Orleans did not produce any evidence to refute the conclusions of Dr. Ruli. ² His testimony is clear and undisputed.

We conclude that defendant-appellant has failed to overcome the presumption of causal relationship between Vincent's job and the heart disease he now suffers from. Appellant's contention that Vincent's concurrent employment in the often tense real estate business does not impress us as sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption.

Although the trial court's interpretation is somewhat in conflict with our own, we conclude that the language of the Act does not, on the facts of this case, grant the City of New Orleans the protection extended to the employer in Bates, supra.

The trial judge was correct in overruling defendant-appellant's plea of prescription under R.S. 23:1031.1(d). The City of New Orleans commenced payment of compensation benefits to plaintiff-appellee from the time he suffered a heart attack until his retirement on December 9, 1973. By filing suit for benefits on April 2, 1974, plaintiff-appellee was within the time allocated for the assertion of a claim for a work related injury.

Additionally, we believe the factual circumstances presented on appeal are governed by the dictates of the Supreme Court in LaCoste, supra, wherein the court de...