Arnold Blackwell v. Heck Industries

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

10-231

ARNOLD BLACKWELL

VERSUS

HECK INDUSTRIES

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - DISTRICT 2
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 03-00588
JAMES BRADDOCK, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION JUDGE

**********

OSWALD A. DECUIR
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Oswald A. Decuir, and
James T. Genovese, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

John K. (Mike) Anderson
Attorney at Law
101 South 1st Street
Leesville, LA 71446
(337) 239-9076
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant:
Arnold Blackwell

Mark A. Watson
Stafford, Stewart & Potter
P. O. Box 1711
Alexandria, LA 71309
(318) 487-4910
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee:
Heck Industries

DECUIR, Judge.

Arnold Blackwell sued his employer, Heck Industries, for workers’

compensation benefits following a work-related injury on August 14, 2002. Upon

finding that Blackwell failed to meet his burden of proof, the workers’ compensation

judge denied the claim for benefits. We affirm.

The parties stipulated that Blackwell sustained some injury from a fall in a hole

in the pavement at a job site. He continued working that day, but he sought medical

care the following day. Blackwell experienced pain in his back and was restricted

from working for a short period of time. Compensation benefits were initiated. For

a period of two months, Blackwell received indemnity and medical benefits from his

employer. He saw several physicians of his own choice and his employer’s choice,

but none of the physicians found objective evidence of any continuing injury caused

by the August 14, 2002 accident. Furthermore, the medical evidence indicated that

Blackwell appeared to engage in both symptom magnification and drug seeking

behavior.

After reviewing the medical evidence presented to the Office of Workers’

Compensation and listening to the live testimony of the claimant, the workers’

compensation judge determined that Blackwell failed to prove by a preponderance of

the evidence that his continuing complaints of back pain, and the need for continued

medical care, resulted from his work-related injury of August 14, 2002. The workers’

compensation judge specifically found that Blackwell had a long history of medical

treatment for back pain and had been on narcotic pain medication for at least ten years

prior to the accident, noting that “Mr. Blackwell has failed to prove that he has

sustained any injuries greater than what he already had wrong with him prior to

August 14th of 2002, [and] that Mr. Blackwell is not entitled to receipt of any further

indemnity benefits nor medical expense payments.”

The record reveals an exhaustive history of Blackwell’s treatment for back and

neck pain which included at least ten years of narcotic pain medication prior to the

accident at issue herein. The medical evidence also shows the skepticism of

Blackwell’s physicians as he sought treatment for injuries alleged to be caused by the

work-related accident. While he did show some objective signs of injury, Blackwell’s

records overwhelmingly show inconsistent complaints, negligible objective findings,

and what was described as a “severe chemical dependency;” additionally, his history

reveals treatment for mental health and substance abuse symptoms. Most important,

Blackwell had a pre-existing back injury and long-standing chronic pain, both of

which could have reasonably been the cause of his continuing complaints of back

pain.

Factual findings in workers’ compensation cases are subject to the manifest

error or clearly wrong standard of appellate review. Banks v. Indus. Roofing & Sheet

Metal Works, Inc., 96-2840 (La. 7/1/97) 696 So.2d 551, 556. In applying the

manifest error standard, the appellate court determines whether the factfinder’s

conclusion was reasonable, not whether the trier of fact was right or wrong. Banks,

696 So.2d at 556. “[E]ven where the appellate court is convinced it would have

weighed the evidence differently if it had been sitting as trier, the court of appeal may

not reverse if the factfinder’s findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed

in its entirety.” Winford v. Conerly Corp., 04-1278, pp. 15-16 (La. 3/11/05), 897

So.2d 560, 569-70.

2

We find no manifest error in the decision rendered below. In oral reasons for

judgment, the workers’ compensation judge reached the following conclusion:

Mr. Blackwell has failed to prove by preponderance of the evidence that
any continuing complaints he had after the incident on August 14th of
2002 were related to the fall in this hole on that date, given his prior
history of the same and similar complaints that he had subsequent to the
accident, which were the same complaints he had previous to the
accident.

After reviewing the record before us, we have determined that the factual conclusions

reached by the workers’ compensation judge are reasonable and well-supported by

the evidence. Accordingly, the judgment in favor of Heck Industries is affirmed.

Costs of the appeal are assessed to the claimant, Arnold Blackwell.

AFFIRMED.

3