Belsome v. Southern Stevedoring, Inc.
Belsome v. Southern Stevedoring, Inc., 118 So. 2d 458 (La. 1960).
Cited by
- Hitchcock v. State 901 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
- Connie Hitchcock v. State of Louisiana La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
- Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist. 836 So. 2d 14 La. 2003
- Duplantis v. Louisiana Bd. of Ethics 782 So. 2d 582 La. 2001
- Church Point Wholesale Beverage Co., Inc. v. Tarver 614 So. 2d 697 La. 1993
- Dement v. International Paper Co. 479 So. 2d 993 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
- Levickey v. Cargill, Inc. 405 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
- Cole v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 389 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
- Lytell v. Strickland Transp. Co., Inc. 373 So. 2d 138 La. 1979
- In Re Gulf Oxygen Welder's Sup. Prof. Shar. P. & TA 297 So. 2d 663 La. 1974
- Allen v. Herrin Transportation Co. 227 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
- Carlock v. Gross 200 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
Opinion text
McCALEB, Justice (concurring). It appears to me that the fundamental error in this case was the original judgment awarding plaintiff compensation not exceeding 300 weeks on the ground that he was temporarily totally disabled, when the evidence showed that he suffered the loss of the distal phalanx of the right thumb and, as a result of his injury sustained, according to the medical testimony, a 25% disability in his right hand. This loss was of a permanent nature and, as plaintiff admittedly was able to perform work as a longshoreman (he has worked over 600 hours in that capacity since the accident), compensation should have been awarded him in the first instance for the permanent partial loss of use of his right hand. *427 However, defendant failed to appeal and that judgment has dong since become final. In seeking a modification of the judgment, it was incumbent on defendant to show that plaintiff’s disability had diminished. R.S. 23 :1331. But it does not appear to me that there has been any substantial change in plaintiff’s capacity to work forasmuch as the evidence taken at the first trial clearly shows that plaintiff was at that time able to work and the physicians felt that he should engage in work in order to become acclimated to the partial loss of use of his thumb. I therefore concur in the majority ruling.