 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wilson v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.10/31/2001
AFFIRMED.
DOUCET, Chief Judge
Claimant, Montie Lou (Midkiff) Wilson, appeals a judgment of an Office of Workers' Compensation (OWC) judge dismissing her petition for benefits. We affirm that judgment.
FACTS
According to Claimant, a cashier at the Leesville Wal-Mart store, on January 9, 1998, she slipped and fell while retrieving a box of plastic bags for use at her register. Ms. Wilson claims that after reaching up to the shelf on which the bags were stored, she stepped backwards, slipped and fell to a seated position injuring her low back and neck. The alleged accident was unwitnessed. However, a Wal-Mart supervisor discovered her sitting on the floor, an accident report was filled out, and Ms. Wilson was referred to Dr. Tom Wong, Wal-Mart's choice of physicians. Thereafter, Wal-Mart began paying benefits.
On September 29, 1999, Ms. Wilson filed a WC Form 1008, seeking payment of medical and travel expenses. Thereafter, on May 10, 2000, Wal-Mart discontinued benefits. This trial followed.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
In Bryan v. Allstate Timber Co., 98-840, pp. 2-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/16/98); 724 So.2d 853, 855, a panel of this court set out the law and jurisprudence applicable to this case stating:
It is well settled in workers' compensation cases that appellate courts are required to apply the "manifest error--clearly wrong" standard of review. To determine whether manifest error occurred below, an appellate court must review the record in its entirety. Alexander v. Pellerin Marble & Granite, 93-1698 (La.1/14/94); 630 So.2d 706.
Factual findings of the workers' compensation judge may not be set aside unless they are manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Key v. Insurance Co. of North America, 605 So.2d 675 (La.App. 2 Cir.1992). Great weight is given the workers' compensation judge's factual conclusions, reasonable evaluations of credibility, and reasonable inferences of fact. Dixon v. Louisiana Restaurant Ass'n, 561 So.2d 135 (La.App. 3 Cir.1990).
La.R.S. 23:1031 requires a workers' compensation claimant to initially establish "personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment." Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., 593 So.2d 357, 360 (La.1992). An accident, for purposes of workers' compensation law, is defined in La.R.S. 23:1021(1) as follows:
"Accident" means an unexpected or unforeseen actual, identifiable, precipitous event happening suddenly or violently, with or without human fault, and directly producing at the time objective findings of an injury which is more than simply a gradual deterioration or progressive degeneration.
To recover workers' compensation benefits, a claimant must establish by a preponderance of evidence that an accident occurred on the job site and that an injury was sustained. Garner v. Sheats & Frazier, 95-39 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/5/95); 663 So.2d 57. A worker's testimony alone may be sufficient to discharge this burden of proof, provided two elements are satisfied: (1) no other evidence discredits or casts serious doubt upon the worker's version of the incident; and (2) the worker's testimony is corroborated by the circumstances following the alleged incident. Garner, 663 So.2d at 60.
The evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to the claimant. When there is proof of an accident and attendant disability, without an intervening cause, it is presumed that the accident caused the disability. Additionally, the trier of fact's determination as to whether a compensable injury was suffered is a question of fact and will not be disturbed unless manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. D
Page 1 2 Louisiana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|