John Lasalle v. City of Lake Charles

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

WCA 17-32

JOHN LASALLE

VERSUS

CITY OF LAKE CHARLES, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION - # 3
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 14-05524
ANTHONY PAUL PALERMO, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION JUDGE

**********

D. KENT SAVOIE
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Phyllis M. Keaty, and D. Kent Savoie,
Judges.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

Christopher E. John
Assistant City Attorney
P.O. Box 900
Lake Charles, LA 70602-0900
(337) 491-1523
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
City of Lake Charles

Jason R. Bell
Cox, Cox, Filo, Camel & Wilson
723 Broad Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 436-6611
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
John LaSalle

SAVOIE, Judge.

An employer appeals the workers’ compensation court’s judgment finding

that its employee’s injuries to his right knee were causally related to a work-

accident. For the following reasons, we reverse and render judgment in favor of

the employer.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 20, 2007, John LaSalle fell off of a trash truck in the course and

scope of his employment with the City of Lake Charles (“the City”). He injured

his left knee and underwent a left knee replacement. The City paid medical

benefits relating to his left knee injuries, as well as indemnity benefits.

On May 20, 2014, Mr. LaSalle sought treatment from Dr. Brett Cascio,

complaining of pain in his right knee. Dr. Cascio provided Mr. LaSalle with a

steroid injection and ordered an MRI. The City declined to cover the cost of the

MRI.

Mr. LaSalle then saw Dr. David Drez on June 26, 2014, for a second

medical opinion regarding his right knee. Dr. Drez’s report concluded that no

diagnostic studies or further treatment were necessary, other than over-the-counter

anti-inflammatory medication. The City again declined to cover expenses related

to treatment to Mr. LaSalle’s right knee.

On August 20, 2014, Mr. LaSalle filed a disputed claim for compensation

seeking medical benefits related to alleged injuries to his right knee, as well as

penalties and attorney fees for the City’s alleged arbitrary and capricious handling

of the claim.

Mr. LaSalle saw Dr. Cascio again on September 18, 2014. Dr. Cascio’s

report noted a “small effusion” in the right knee and that Mr. LaSalle was provided

with another steroid injection. Dr. Cascio ordered an MRI, and the City again

declined to the cover the cost.

The City filed an Answer on October 7, 2014, admitting that a work-related

accident occurred on August 20, 2007, and that Mr. LaSalle sustained injuries to

his left knee arising from that accident. It otherwise denied allegations concerning

Mr. LaSalle’s right knee.

On April 10, 2015, the workers’ compensation court signed an order

appointing Dr. Thomas Ford to perform an independent medical examination

(“IME”) in connection with the disputed medical issues. On May 28, 2015, Dr.

Ford completed the IME. His report stated in part (emphasis added):

It is my opinion that Mr. LaSalle’s right knee complaints are from
degenerative osteoarthritis of his knee. I do not think these
complaints were caused by his on the job injury. While his
increased use of the right leg during recovery of his left TKA may
have hastened the degeneration in his knee, there is nothing to make
one believe there is a cause and effect relationship.

The matter was called for trial on June 21, 2016. The parties submitted

documentary evidence including Mr. LaSalle’s medical records, and they

otherwise agreed to submit the matter on briefs. Post-trial briefs were ordered and

submitted.

On September 23, 2016, the workers’ compensation court signed an order

adopting its oral reasons given on that day as the written reasons of the court. The

oral reasons concluded that Mr. LaSalle’s injuries to his right knee were not

causally related to the work accident. However, the oral reasons were not certified

or sent to the parties until November 7, 2016.

In the meantime, on November 1, 2016, the workers’ compensation court

signed a judgment in this matter finding that Mr. LaSalle’s injuries to his right

2

knee were in fact causally related to the work accident and ordering the City to pay

related medical benefits. This judgment was designated final and appealable.1

The City appeals asserting that “[t]he trial court erred by concluding that

right knee injuries in 2014 were causally related to the August 20, 2007 work-

related accident.” The City argues that Mr. LaSalle “failed to prove by a

reasonable medical preponderance that his right knee injuries were work-

related[.]”

ANALYSIS

As we stated in Bollich v. Family Dollar, Inc., 05-1459, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 3

Cir. 6/21/06), 934 So.2d 249, 252:

An appellate court’s review of factual findings in a workers’
compensation case is governed by the manifest error or clearly wrong
standard of review. Smith v. La. Dep’t of Corr., 93-1305 (La.2/28/94),
633 So.2d 129; Freeman v. Poulan/Weed Eater, 93-1530 (La.1/14/94),
630 So.2d 733. Further, “[t]he issue of causation is an issue of fact.”
Langley v. Larco Envtl. Servs., Inc., 01-304, p. 8 (La.App. 3 Cir.
10/3/01), 798 So.2d 1097, 1102. In order to reverse a factual
determination, the appellate court (1) must find that a reasonable
factual basis does not exist in the record for the finding and (2) must
further determine that the finding is clearly wrong. Stobart v. State
through Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993).

In a workers’ compensation case, the claimant must establish a
causal link between the work-related accident and the claimed
disability. Walton v. Normandy Village Homes Ass’n, Inc., 475 So.2d
320 (La.1985). To aid the employee in meeting this burden:

[t]he employee’s workplace accident is presumed to have
caused or aggravated his disability when [he] proves that:
(1) before the accident, [he] had not manifested disabling
symptoms; (2) commencing with the accident, the
disabling symptoms appeared; and (3) there is medical or
circumstantial evidence indicating a reasonable
possibility of causal connection between the accident and
activation of the disabling condition. Once an employee

1
We note that no judgment was prepared in accordance with the court’s reasons for
ruling; therefore, there are no conflicting judgments in this case. We also note that the workers’
compensation court did not provide any reasons supporting the judgment actually rendered.

3

establishes the presumption of a [causal] relationship, the
employer must produce evidence and persuade the trier
of fact that it is more probable than not that the injury
was not caused by the work accident.

Tate v. Cabot Corp., 01-1652, p. 6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/3/02), 824 So.2d
456, 461, writ denied, 02-2150 (La.11/22/02), 829 So.2d 1044
(quoting Rideaux v. Franklin Nursing Home, 95-240, p. 5 (La.App. 3
Cir. 11/22/95), 664 So.2d 750, 755, writ denied, 95-3093 (La.2/16/96),
667 So.2d 1058 (citations omitted)). However, “[i]f the evidence
leaves the probabilities of causation equally balanced, the claimant
has failed to carry her burden of proof.” Courville v. Premier
Abrasive Prods., 01-840, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/12/01), 801 So.2d
598, 601.

In the instant matter, the court-appointed medical examiner, Dr. Ford,

concluded that there was no causal connection between the August 20, 2007 work-

accident and the degenerative osteoarthritis of Mr. LaSalle’s right knee. Dr. Ford’s

report is “prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.” La.R.S. 23:1123.

While an IME’s report is given significant weight, it is not conclusive,

and the workers’ compensation judge must evaluate all of the
evidence presented in making a decision as to the claimant’s medical
condition. As a general rule, while the trier of fact is required to
weigh the testimony of all medical witnesses, the testimony of the
treating physician should be accorded greater weight than that of a
physician who examines a patient only once or twice.

Richardson v. Lil’ River Harvesting, 09-1090, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/10/10), 33

So.3d 418, 419-20 (citations omitted).

Mr. LaSalle argues that the trial court’s judgment is correct because it

properly gives more weight to Mr. LaSalle’s treating physician Dr. Cascio’s

conclusion that Mr. LaSalle’s injuries to his right knee were caused by Mr. LaSalle

having to overcompensate as a result of injuries to his left knee sustained in the

work-related accident. However, contrary to Mr. LaSalle’s suggestion, we fail to

see where Dr. Cascio provided an opinion as to the cause of any injuries to Mr.

LaSalle’s right knee.

4

The record includes two separate reports from Dr. Cascio. The first is

related to an examination on May 28, 2014. The report notes that Mr. LaSalle

complained of right knee pain on that date and that Mr. LaSalle told Dr. Cascio

that “due to him favoring his left knee, his right knee has been bothering him.”

While Dr. Cascio concluded, following examination, that there was a “right knee

meniscal tear,” Dr. Cascio’s conclusions are silent as to what caused the right knee

injuries. Similarly, Dr. Cascio’s report from an examination of Mr. LaSalle on

September 18, 2014, does not provide an opinion regarding whether Mr. LaSalle’s

injuries to his right knee were caused by the work-accident that occurred seven

years prior.

Therefore, because the only medical evidence in the record concerning the

cause of Mr. LaSalle’s right knee injuries is Dr. Ford’s conclusion that the injuries

were not causally related to the August 20, 2007 work-accident, we conclude that

the workers’ compensation court was manifestly erroneous in rendering judgment

in favor of Mr. LaSalle.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the workers’ compensation court’s judgment in

favor of Plaintiff-Appellee, Mr. LaSalle, is hereby reversed, and judgment is

hereby entered in favor of Defendant-Appellant, City of Lake Charles, dismissing

Mr. LaSalle’s action. Costs of this appeal are assessed against Mr. LaSalle.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

5