Johnson v. Cabot Carbon Co.
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., March 16, 1932 140 So. 257; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., February 18, 1907 4 Teiss. 175; La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., March 12, 1973 274 So. 2d 454
Johnson v. Cabot Carbon Co., 84 So. 2d 639 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955).
Cited by
- Glidden v. Alexandria Concrete Co. 132 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
- Finley v. Hardware Mutual Insurance 96 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
- Bailey v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 94 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
- Fee v. Calcasieu Paper Co. 89 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Johnson v. Cabot Carbon Co. 75 So. 2d 389
- Johnson v. Cabot Carbon Company 227 La. 941
Opinion text
LOTTINGER, Judge. When this matter was previously before us, we reversed the Judgment of the District Court, sustained the defendant’s plea of prescription and dismissed plaintiff's suit. See La.App., 75 So.2d 389 . Subsequently the plaintiff applied to the Supreme Court for and was granted a- writ of cer-tiorari or review. The Supreme Court reversed our holding on the question of prescription and remanded the case to us for consideration of the merits. See 227 La. 941 , 81 So.2d 2 . All of the medical evidence as well as lay testimony has been carefully reviewed by us in our former opinion, wherein we concluded that plaintiff was totally disabled. See 75 So.2d at page 402 . Defendant still contends however that plaintiff has failed to prove his disability and complaint by a preponderance of the evidence, and that plaintiff is able to do the same type and kind of work he was doing when injured. To this we do not agree but concur with the findings of fact of the Lower Court. Plaintiff was classified as a utility man in the employment of defendant. As such, this classification has been described by defendant’s district superintendent as “well utility man covers about any type of work in the plant, in the yard, such as cleaning up, or working in the warehouse; working around the units, processing buildings, light carpenter work, helping painters, helping plumbers. Just as you might say, it is a floating crew that can help do any type of work within the plant.” It has been shown under this classification that plaintiff was required to do various and sundry types' of work around the plant the majority of which was heavy manual labor. It likewise has been shown in this record by a preponderance of testimony by medical as well as lay witnesses that the plaintiff is unable to perform any type of heavy work without pain and suffering. He could only be recommended to do' light work. It is well established in our jurisprudence that an employee whose injuries prevent him from performing his customary and usual duties without suffering pain, hardship and discomfort is totally disabled within the meaning of the Compensation Act. We are of the firm opinion that plaintiff falls within this category and are still of the opinion that the plaintiff is totally and permanently disabled and consequently the judgment appealed from is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. TATE, J., recused, M. D. MILLER, Jr., Judge ad hoc.