 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bordelon v. Inland Industrial Contractors1/31/2001
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND RENDERED.
Inland Industrial Contractors (Inland) appeals the award of indemnity and medical benefits and attorney fees by the workers' compensation judge in favor of Silton Bordelon. Mr. Bordelon appeals the workers' compensation judge's failure to award penalties and seeks an increase in attorney fees. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and render.
Mr. Bordelon went to work for Inland in April 1998, as a welder at the Procter & Gamble plant in Rapides Parish. Mr. Bordelon, who was sixty-eight years old at the time, was returning to work for Inland after having been laid off in December 1997, due to a bout with pneumonia. In 1984, he had injured his back and had to undergo two back surgeries. Before being hired by Inland, Mr. Bordelon underwent a physical examination which resulted in some work restrictions being placed on him. He worked without incident until July 1, 1998, when he alleges that he injured his back picking up a piece of scrap metal. He filed a claim against Inland, seeking indemnity and medical benefits and penalties and attorney fees. Inland denied Mr. Bordelon's claims because he did not report the accident when it happened and because information he reported regarding the accident was not consistent with other information provided by him and conflicted with information obtained from other Inland employees.
Inland appeals, assigning as error the workers' compensation judge's determination that Mr. Bordelon satisfied his burden of proof that an accident occurred, the assessment of attorney fees, and the workers' compensation judge's failure to specify whether Mr. Bordelon was entitled to total temporary disability benefits (TTDs) or supplemental earning benefits (SEBs). Mr. Bordelon answered the appeal seeking an award of penalties and an increase in attorney fees for work done on this appeal.
Standard of Review
In Edwards v. Sawyer Industrial Plastics, Inc., 99-2676, p. 9 (La. 6/30/00); 765 So.2d 328, 333, quoting Canter v. Koehring Co., 283 So.2d 716, 724 (La.1973), the supreme court reviewed its definition of the standard for appellate review of a workers' compensation judge's factual findings:
When there is evidence before the trier of fact which, upon its reasonable evaluation of credibility, furnishes a reasonable factual basis for the trial court's finding, on review the appellate court should not disturb this factual finding in the absence of manifest error. Stated another way, the reviewing court must give great weight to factual conclusions of the trier of fact; where there is conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable. The reason for this well-settled principle of review is based not only upon the trial court's better capacity to evaluate live witnesses (as compared with the appellate court's access only to a cold record), but also upon the proper allocation of trial and appellate functions between the respective courts.
Proof of an Accident
We have reviewed the record and find sufficient evidence to support the workers' compensation judge's factual findings regarding Mr. Bordelon's accident. Inland identified discrepancies in Mr. Bordelon's version of why he did not report his accident the day it happened, how his accident occurred, and what time it occurred. Inland argues these discrepancies require discounting Mr. Bordelon's credibility. Primarily, there are two discrepancies argued by Inland. First, Mr. Bordelon's fail
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.
|
|