Chatelain v. American Can Co.
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., November 15, 1976 339 So. 2d 1322; La. Ct. App. 2d Cir., April 2, 1968 209 So. 2d 801
Chatelain v. American Can Co., 387 So. 2d 670 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980).
Cited by
- James Clifford Arrant v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc. C/W Marvin Jack Barnett, Jr. v. … La. 2015
- Becker v. Murphy Oil Corp. 70 So. 3d 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
- O'REGAN v. Preferred Enterprises, Inc. 737 So. 2d 31 La. 1999
- LeBlanc v. Consolidated Aluminum Co. 433 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
- Chatelain v. American Can Co. 394 So. 2d 275 La. 1980
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Chatelain v. American Can Co. 344 So. 2d 1180
Opinion text
REDMANN, Judge. Plaintiff appeals from the dismissal, on exception of no cause of action, of his suit against his corporate employer for damages, alleging that noise at his employment caused him a partial hearing loss and hypersensitivity to loud noises. Accepting plaintiff’s petition’s allegations as true, his petition would state a cause of action for workers’ compensation and it might therefore be argued that the judgment appealed from is not wholly correct. However, the context is that plaintiff has already tried and lost a suit for workers’ compensation, 344 So.2d 1180 , this court finding that he did not prove his hearing problems were caused by his work environment. Thus, insofar as the petition is viewed as stating a cause of action for workers’ compensation, defendant’s exception of res judicata would require its dismissal. And, to the extent that plaintiff seeks any recovery other than workers’ compensation, he does not state a cause of action because of the exclusivity of workers’ compensation, R.S. 23:1032. Affirmed.