 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
King. v. Stranco11/9/2001
Parro, J. agrees in part and dissents in part with written reasons.
In this workers' compensation case, plaintiffs/appellants, John King and Nelson Washington, appeal a summary judgment rendered by the Office of Workers' Compensation (the OWC) in favor of defendant Stranco, Inc. (Stranco).
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In these consolidated cases, King and Washington each filed disputed claims for compensation with the OWC. Each claims to have been exposed to hazardous waste while working for Stranco cleaning the Livingston train derailment site. They claim that they now suffer from injuries and illnesses as a result of that exposure.
Stranco filed answers denying the claims and, in response to King's claim, urged a declinatory exception raising the objection of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which was denied. Stranco also filed a third party demand against St. Gabriel Contractors, Inc., with regard to King's claim.
After the cases were consolidated, Stranco filed a motion for summary judgment alleging there was no support for either King 's or Washington's claims. In its memorandum in support of summary judgment, Stranco argued that in order to prevail on their claims, King and Washington each must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) that he suffers from a disability; (2) that the disability is related to an employment-related disease; (3) that he contracted the disease during the course of his employment; and (4) that the disease is a result of the work performed. Stranco further alleged that neither King nor Washington had produced any evidence that would prove any of those elements.
For purposes of the motion for summary judgment, King and Washington conceded that they must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the elements set forth by Stranco. In opposition to the motion, King and Washington each submitted medical records allegedly indicating they had been treated by physicians for chemical exposure.
After a hearing on the matter, the workers' compensation judge granted Stranco's motion for summary judgment stating he was convinced there was no causal connection between the alleged exposure and either King 's or Washington's present medical condition. From this adverse judgment, King and Washington now appeal.
DISCUSSION
A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used to avoid a full-scale trial where there is no genuine factual dispute. It should only be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. LSA-C.C.P. art. 966; Zeringue v. Karl Ott Poles & Pilings, 2000-0522, p.3 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/11/01), ___ So.2d ___, ___.
Appellate courts review summary judgments de novo under the same criteria that govern the trial court's determination of whether a summary judgment is appropriate. Because it is the applicable substantive law that determines materiality, whether or not a particular fact in dispute is material can be seen only in light of the substantive law applicable to the case. Zeringue, ___ So.2d at ___. To prevail on their claims, King and Washington each must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffers from a disability related to an employment-related disease that was contracted during the course of his employment as a result of work performed. See Price v. City of New Orleans, 95-1851, p.8 (La. App. 4th Cir. 3/27/96), 672 So.2d 1045, 1049, writ denied, 96-1016 (La. 10/25/96), 681 So.2d 360; see also LSA-R.S. 23:1031.1.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Louisiana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|