 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Matthews v. Ron Williams Construction2/6/2002
Claimant brought suit against his employer for workers' compensation benefits. The workers' compensation judge found that the claimant failed to prove that a work-related accident occurred. The claimant now appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the workers' compensation judge.
Factual and Procedural Background
On approximately July 20, 2000, Daryl Matthews began to suffer from what he described as a "crick" in his neck. Matthews stated that he was not immediately aware of what caused the neck pain. Matthews was working on a construction job in Raceland and his employer provided living quarters. While working in Raceland, Matthews was required to tighten a pipe with a thirty-six inch wrench for several hours. Additionally, Matthews testified that to reach the pipe, he had to climb, what he described as a column, the "old fashioned" way in order to reach the pipe because there were not any stairs or ladders. Thus, at the time of the onset of the neck pain, Matthews was not sure if the "crick" that he felt was a result of sleeping in an unfamiliar bed, tightening the pipe, or climbing the column. The record indicates that Matthews reported the neck pain to his supervisor, Murry Lormand, and continued to work until August 16, 2000, when the pain became unbearable. At that time, the record reveals that Matthews' supervisor told him to go home and see a chiropractor. On August 17, 2000, Matthews drove home and went to see a chiropractor. After seeing the chiropractor, Matthews spoke with company personnel about being injured in a work-related accident.
The workers' compensation judge decided that to find that there was a work-related accident would be speculative and, thus, determined that Matthews failed to carry his burden of proof. Matthews then filed this appeal.
Matthews assigns two points of error. The first point of error is the workers' compensation judge's finding that he failed to carry his burden to prove injury from a work-related accident. Next, Matthews argues that the workers' compensation judge erred in finding that the defendant reasonably controverted the claim and that penalties and attorney's fees were not due. For the following reasons, we affirm the workers' compensation judge's findings.
Discussion
The claimant argues that the workers' compensation judge committed manifest error by concluding that the claimant failed to prove a work-related accident. However, the factual findings of a trial judge may not be set aside by this court in the absence of manifest error. Stobart v. State, through Dep't of Transp. and Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993). When determining whether a work-related accident has occurred, this court has previously explained the law of causation relevant to workers' compensation cases as follows:
In order to establish a claim for medical benefits, the employee must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the predicament complained of arose as a result of a work-related accident. Alleman v. Fruit of the Loom-Crowley, 96-1246 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/5/97); 692 So.2d 485. "Proof by a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient when the evidence taken as a whole, shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not." Watkins v. Asphalt Assocs., Inc., 96-249 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/4/96); 685 So.2d 393, 395. Therefore, it must be determined that the employment caused or contributed to the disability, albeit, it is not necessary that the exact reason be found. Augustus v. St. Mary Parish Sch. Bd., 95-2498 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/28/96); 676 So.2d 1144. Peloquin v. Eunice News, 98-1524, p.9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/28/99); 737 So.2d 132,139, writ denied, 99-1573 (La. 9/17/99); 747
Page 1 2 3 Louisiana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|