Vernita Thomas v. Alliance Compressors
Vernita Thomas v. Alliance Compressors, No. WCA-0004-1034 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. Dec. 8, 2004).
Opinion text
NUMBER 04-1034
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERNITA THOMAS
VERSUS
ALLIANCE COMPRESSORS
AMY, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I concur in that portion of the majority opinion affirming the workers’
compensation judge’s determination to exclude from evidence the ergonomics report
prepared by the employer’s witness. However, I respectfully dissent from the
remainder of the majority opinion. In my opinion, the evidence as to causation
presented by the plaintiff is insufficient to meet La.R.S. 23:1031.1(B)’s requirement
that the disease/illness allegedly compensable as an occupational disease is “due to
causes and conditions characteristic of and peculiar to the particular trade,
occupation, process, or employment in which the employee is exposed to such
disease.” Due to the record’s lack of evidentiary proof in this regard, I would reverse
the trial court’s finding of an occupational disease.
NUMBER 04-1034
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERNITA THOMAS
VERSUS
ALLIANCE COMPRESSORS
AMY, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I concur in that portion of the majority opinion affirming the workers’
compensation judge’s determination to exclude from evidence the ergonomics report
prepared by the employer’s witness. However, I respectfully dissent from the
remainder of the majority opinion. In my opinion, the evidence as to causation
presented by the plaintiff is insufficient to meet La.R.S. 23:1031.1(B)’s requirement
that the disease/illness allegedly compensable as an occupational disease is “due to
causes and conditions characteristic of and peculiar to the particular trade,
occupation, process, or employment in which the employee is exposed to such
disease.” Due to the record’s lack of evidentiary proof in this regard, I would reverse
the trial court’s finding of an occupational disease.