Williams v. New Orleans Paper Box Co.
| Decision Date | 04 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 2105,2105 |
| Citation | 185 So.2d 109 |
| Parties | Eddie WILLIAMS v. NEW ORLEANS PAPER BOX COMPANY and Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. Ltd. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Garvey & Salvaggio, John A. Salvaggio, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
Drury & Lozes, James H. Drury, New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.
Before REGAN, SAMUEL and CHASEZ, JJ.
This is a suit under the Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Act against plaintiff's employer and its compensation insurer for alleged total and permanent disability. There was judgment in the trial court dismissing the suit for the reason that plaintiff had failed to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence. Plaintiff has appealed therefrom.
On January 2, 1964 plaintiff slipped and fell backward while pushing a hand truck loaded with cardboard. He sustained a ruptured intervertebral disc requiring surgical removal. On April 30, 1964 a successful laminectomy was performed by Dr. Howard Karr, a neurosurgeon. Plaintiff remained under the care of Dr. Karr until October 12, 1964, at which time that physician discharged him as being physically able to resume his normal activities and work. Plaintiff had been seen and treated by other physicians prior to the time he first saw Dr. Karr. After his discharge by that physician he entered Charity Hospital where he was examined and treated for hypertension, a kidney condition and a prostate gland condition. He testified that at that time he underwent prostate surgery, but this appears to be unlikely.
Plaintiff was paid compensation benefits at the maximum rate of $35 per week from the date of the accident to November 2, 1964. In the trial court counsel for the litigants stipulated that the accident was compensable at the maximum rate. The sole question before us on this appeal, and the only question which was before the district court, is whether the injury and the subsequent laminectomy aggravated a pre-existing osteoarthritic condition of plaintiff's spine and thus produced permanent and total disability under the act .
Only three witnesses testified during the course of the trial: the plaintiff himself; Dr. Howard Karr, a defendant witness; and Dr. Ray J. Haddad, Jr., an orthopedic surgeon called by plaintiff.
The pertinent portion of plaintiff's testimony is as follows: He was 45 years of age and had been working for the defendant-employer 'off and on' for many years. Prior to the accident he had never lost any time from work due to back pain, nor had he ever had any noticeable back pain or been treated by a physician for such a condition. But since the surgery necessitated by the accident he has experienced a nagging pain in the lower part of the back, continues to suffer from low back pain and, as a result of that pain, has not been able to work, not even to the extent of performing light tasks around the house. This witness testified to, and had told his own examining physician and witness, Dr. Haddad, some facts which are medically impossible even according to Dr. Haddad. In his written reasons for judgment the trial judge stated he was not impressed with the testimony of the plaintiff.
Dr. Karr first saw plaintiff on April 17, 1964, at which time he discovered the ruptured disc. Following the surgery on April 30, 1964 plaintiff's post operative course was uneventful and he was discharged from the hospital on May 9, 1964. One week later this physician found the plaintiff had some restriction on forward bending due to the post operative status and prescribed physiotherapy. Dr. Karr saw the plaintiff on September 30, 1964, at which time he felt plaintiff was not quite ready to return to work, and again examined him on October 12, 1964. On that last occasion he found no tilt or list in restriction of motion of the back, normal reversal of the curve on forward bending, no spasm, no straight-leg raising restriction, and other findings, all of which were within normal limits. Following this examination the doctor was of the opinion that plaintiff was physically qualified to resume his normal work duties. The plaintiff was last seen by Dr. Karr on June 16, 1965, just one week before the trial, when he complained of discomfort in the lower back. Dr. Karr found nothing wrong from a neurological standpoint. He reviewed x-rays taken at the time showing degenerative changes in the form of osteophytes, which the doctor stated were only a part of the aging process. Dr. Karr found no evidence of an aggravation of a pre-existing osteoarthritic condition and was of the firm opinion that plaintiff was physically able to return to work of the same type he had previously performed.
Dr. Haddad examined plaintiff on only one occasion, March 20, 1965, approximately three months before the trial. At that time plaintiff informed this physician be was unable to return to work because of low back pain. Dr. Haddad was unable to obtain a clear history from the plaintiff. However, he made an examination and had x-rays taken. The examination disclosed that, as a result of plaintiff's complaints of pain, there was some restriction in the range of motion in the back; he could not forward flex past forty degrees and could not carry through a full range of motion on reversal of the lordotic curve. The x-rays were compatible with degenerative arthritic changes of the lower back. The objective findings did not show any significant evidence of nerve injuries or irritation, nor were there any objective findings tending to show the injury and laminectomy had in fact aggravated the arthritic condition. Dr. Haddad was of the opinion that the decreasing range of motion of the back was due to plaintiff's osteoarthritis, a degenerative disease usually the result of many years of minute trauma which unquestionably was of long duration and existed at the time of the accident, and that the injury resulting in the ruptured disc, and the subsequent laminectomy, 'probably did cause some furthering of the degenerative arthritis'. However, he conceded that the only objective manner by which this could be shown to be true would be by a comparison of x-rays taken before the occurrence of the injury and after the performance of the laminectomy and that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 4384
...plaintiff must establish his claim to a legal certainty and by a reasonable preponderance of evidence. Williams v. New Orleans Paper Box Company, 185 So.2d 109 (La.App.4th Cir. 1966). The liberality of statutory interpretation in favor of the employee cannot be offered to relieve claimant o......
-
Powell v. Patterson Truck Lines, Inc.
...case must establish his claim to a legal certainty and by a reasonable preponderance of the evidence. Williams v. New Orleans Paper Box Company, La.App., 185 So.2d 109 and cases cited therein.' Price v. Walgreen's Company, La.App., 204 So.2d See also Adams v. Home Indemnity Company, La.App.......
-
Batiste v. Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center
...exercise of reasonable diligence should have been known, to the losing party and was available to him. Williams v. New Orleans Paper Box Company, 185 So.2d 109 (La.App. 4th Cir.1966). Thus, the October 28, 1987 deposition of Dr. Whitecloud, the additional testimony of Batiste and the OLOL d......
-
Dufrene v. St. Charles Parish Police Jury
...Price v. Walgreen's Company, La.App., 204 So.2d 67; Flowers v. E. M. Toussel Oil Co., La.App., 190 So.2d 147; Williams v. New Orleans Paper Box Company, La.App., 185 So.2d 109.2 Lawless v. Steel Erectors, Inc., 254 La. 37, 222 So.2d 849; Brannon v. Zurich General Accident & Liability Ins. C......