Omar Ferrer VS Caitlin Harwood and State Farm Insurance Company
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2008 CA 2455 OMAR FERRER VERSUS CAITLIN HARWOOD AND STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY Judgment On Rendered June 12 2009 Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Trial Court No 536 941 Honorable Janice Clark Kelly Baton E Balfour Rouge Judge Presiding Attorney for Plaintiff Appellee LA Omar Ferrer Katherine M LaPorte Attorney for Defendant Appellant Baton State Farm Mutual Automobile Rouge LA Insurance BE ORE CARTER I J C Company WHIPPLE AND DOWNING JJ CARTER C J Following District Court damage award related to Ferrer insured s neck a The On that Mr Ferrer suffered and neck damage only issues at trial were through Dept 1993 The record for findings must whether the the trier of fact was a State Farm petition Liberty Transp and result of the as a for unless court court s car abused its a minor s findings clearly more or than whiplash court s findings were right incorrectly in this Mutual Insurance just simply wrong to or If the findings referred to case Company as are were State Farm Insurance dismissed 2 prior to trial court s determine manifestly court is not whether reasonable in The other named defendants 882 review the the trial entirety by a reviewing Stobart wrong wrong but whether the fact finder Id one was or clearly of fact 617 So 2d 880 controverts instead review the record in its was caption trial a Development court must do The issue to be resolved reasonable and the fault of was manifestly erred in concluding error or evidence that supports trial Id of reviewing some it erroneous causally causation of Mr Ferrer to Mr Ferrer awarded may not be reversed absent manifest La The of short duration injury State be to in subsequent work injury and damages a It is well settled in Louisiana law that v stipulated State Farm maintains the trial amount 50 000 00 found court disc herniation in his neck a alternatively discretion in the had parties Insurance Automobile interest and costs plus legal Farm argues the trial court appeal State wreck Mutual injury that the trial injuries taking into consideration the Nineteenth Judicial III judgment awarding a end collision that the a rear State Farm for Farm appeals Farm was the merits on State plaintiff Omar to damages defendant State Company bench trial a s conclusion light Company of the in the Caitlin Harwood and record reviewed in its entirety an appellate though convinced that had it been sitting Id weighed the evidence differently only the fact finder voice that bear Rosell is said cannot be aware the listener ESCO 549 So 2d 840 844 be of the evidence exist manifestly erroneous the story itself is that reasonable fact finder would so may well find manifest credibility determination are credit the not Id present and testimony of a one virtually never be manifestly After a thorough convinced the trial specifically at the C5 as the cause shortly Ferrer 549 s on evidence so of two s or contradict the witness or implausible on story the s erroneous or witnesses clearly wrong conclusions are not on its face court of upon a its decision to that finding can Id erroneous established his s But where such finding is based more two Id So 2d at 844 845 fact finder what choice between s finding purportedly based a of we are The trial court injury of disc herniation the left hand side and has established the accident thereof The still wrong credit the witness court has considered after the date of the accident was the fact finder inconsistent in tone Thus where review and evaluation of the entire record court 6 level La 1989 clearly or not error found that Mr Ferrer to or internally or factors s for findings s understanding and belief in v story appeal the trier of fact heavily on The manifest of the variations in demeanor and Furthermore where documents a to even the trier of fact it would have as so permissible views them can reverse 617 So 2d at 882 883 standard demands great deference error court may not complaining about that factual conclusions 3 and a as complaint of the of We find the no neck date of trial manifest error pain Mr in these The record disc herniation as a reasonably supports the finding that injury to his neck as a result of the result of the work accident that occurred court obviously considered and believed car Ferrer explanations regarding the history of his injuries his problems and how neck pain after the he car accident had up to the date of trial medical a that the herniation No other doctor had Finding 50 000 00 was car a a court reduced controversy did disc herniation case does the trial 1257 injury court s 127 L Ed 2d 379 La an to statement that his work clearly relied on exceed cert v without merit 4 s injuries s factual damage award had would court stipulated that the Noting the seriousness of amount of damages Thus denied 510 U S s in C5 6 disc s court what the we Maritime Overseas State Farm the opined Mr Ferrer that the parties abuse of discretion as to causation is without merit from 50 000 00 well Dr Burdine specifically stated because the injury and the expert on as in the trial error his only physician accident car complete history of find that the 1993 1994 prior his medical existing pre accident caused Mr Ferrer substantially See Youn award 1260 1261 not we not constitute also assignment of error s otherwise award for herniation amount in court manifest no Furthermore the trial of resolved as of more than three years period conclusions State Farm well immediately after the deposition testimony and symptoms as The trial testimony and s J Michael Burdine the opinion testimony of Dr work accident for pain not The trial have treated Mr Ferrer his his reported a accident rather than months later two Mr Mr Ferrer sustained assignment 1114 of awarded in this may not disturb Corp 623 So 2d 114 S Ct error on 1059 damages is For the above and trial court and assess appellant State costs reasons we affirm the associated with this judgment of the appeal against defendant Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance this memorandum Appeal all foregoing Company opinion in accordance with Uniform Rules Rule 2 16 1B AFFIRMED 5 We issue Courts of
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
