Joe Polkey VS Creel Brothers, Inc. and LUBA Casualty Insurance Company

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CA 0718 JOE POLKEY j VERSUS LANDWORKS INC AND LUBA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY Judgment Rendered October 29 2010 On Appeal from the Office of Workers Compensation Administration District 11 Docket No 0902180 Honorable Elizabeth Warren Judge Presiding Laurie W Maschek Slidell LA Stephen W Brooks Jr Richard J Voelker Covington LA Counsel for Claimant Appellee Joe Polkey Counsel for DefendantsAppellants Landworks Inc and LUBA Casualty Insurance Company BEFORE PARRO GUIDRY AND HUGHES JJ HUGHES J This is an appeal from a judgment of the Office of Workers Compensation OWC awarding temporary total disability benefits For the reasons that follow we amend and affirm as amended FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On January 20 2009 Joe Polkey while in the course and scope of his work as an employee of Landworks Inc Landworks in Franklinton Louisiana allegedly sustained injury to his left knee when a stack of tires fell knocking him to the ground Landworks refused to pay workers compensation benefits Thereafter on March 17 2009 Mr Polkey filed a Disputed Claim for Compensation with the OWC seeking to collect workers compensation benefits penalties and attorney fees from his employer Landworks and his employer insurer LUBA Casualty s Insurance Company LUBA Following a hearing before the OWC the defendants were ordered to provide followup medical treatment to Mr Polkey and he was further awarded temporary total disability benefits from the date of his injury through August 7 2009 the date he became employed elsewhere amounting to 6 a 2 penalty for the defendants failure to 04 00 083 000 pay medical benefits a 2 penalty for the defendants failure to pay 00 000 indemnity benefits attorney fees in the amount of 10 employee 00 700 s costs in the amount of 445 and judicial interest from the date of 00 demand Defendants have appealed this judgment and make the following assignments of error Although Creel Brothers Inc Creel was originally named as Mr Polkey employer in his s March 17 2009 claim for workers compensation Mr Polkey amended his claim on April 27 2009 to substitute Landworks for Creel as the proper employer E 1 The Workers Compensation Judge committed manifest error in concluding that Mr Polkey sustained his burden of proving an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with Landworks Inc on January 20 2009 2 The Workers Compensation Judge abused her discretion in l not allowing proffered relevant evidence or in not granting a continuance to secure the testimony of a witness who was under subpoena but did not appear at trial 3 The Workers Compensation Judge abused her discretion in not strictly construing the penalty provisions of the Louisiana Workers Compensation Act and imposing penalties and s attorney fees NANDY EXiA LI y 11Y i OWC Finding of Compensable Iniury The Workers Compensation Act provides coverage to an employee for personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment See LSAR 23 S 1031 A An employee must prove the chain of causation required by the workers compensation statutory scheme as adopted by the legislature and must establish that the accident was employment related the accident caused the injury and that the injury caused the disability Clausen v D Construction 2001 0077 p 2 G A La App 1 Cir 2 807 So 1199 1201 writ denied 20020824 02 15 2d La 5 816 So 851 02 24 2d As in other cases in reviewing the OWC judge s factual determinations including whether the employee has discharged his burden of proof this court is bound by the manifest error standard of review Lafleur v Alec Electric 2004 0003 p 4 La App 1 Cir 12 898 04 30 2d So 474 478 writs denied 2005 0276 2005 0277 La 4 898 So 05 8 2d 1287 1288 Moran v G G Construction 2003 2447 p 4 La App 1 Cir 10 897 So 75 79 writ denied 20042901 La 2 894 04 29 2d 05 25 2d So 1148 Under that standard of review an appellate court may only 3 reverse an OWC judge factual determinations if it finds from the record s that a reasonable factual basis for the finding does not exist or that examination of the entire record reveals that the finding is clearly erroneous Stobart v State Department of Transportation and Development 617 2d So 880 882 La 1993 Thus where two permissible views of the evidence exist the factfinder choice between them cannot be manifestly s erroneous or clearly wrong Id 617 So at 883 2d Even though an appellate court may feel its own evaluations and inferences are more reasonable than those of the factfinder reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed on review where conflict exists in the testimony Lafleur v Alec Electric 20040003 at p 4 In this case the defendantsappellants contend that the alleged accident was uncorroborated and that evidence presented before the OWC discredited Mr Polkey and cast doubt on his claim Defendantsappellants further assert that the alleged accident was contrived by the claimant because he was angry about being accused of theft in the workplace Following the conclusion of the trial in this matter the OWC judge gave oral reasons for ruling in favor of Mr Polkey stating in pertinent part ve I had the opportunity to listen to all the witnesses both Mr Polkey and the witnesses for Landworks Right off the bat I just want to say Mr Polkey came across to me as a very credible witness I didn see any real glaring inconsistencies t with the description of the accident with the way it happened and the way the witnesses corroborated the incident on January 20th of 2009 Before the OWC the defendants presented testimony that Mr Polkey was suspected of theft in the workplace both from his employer of cash fees paid by customers and from a coworker who claimed to have had a package containing an IRONMAN sweatshirt delivered to the workplace that he did not receive and that he had not disclosed prior injuries on posthire questionnaires submitted to the defendant as well as to other employers employer Defendantsappellants further point to the fact that just prior to the accident Mr Polkey had informed his employer that he was tendering his twoweek notice of resignation as further casting suspicion on the veracity of his subsequent claim of accidental injury L The first thing I wanted to start off with is I think there was a lot put on the fact that Mr Polkey allegedly gave notice of some sort that he had quit or that he was going to give his twoweek notice He testified that he gave his twoweek s notice and he was intending to continue working for the rest of those two weeks Miss Emma who testified today actually corroborated that She said that he had given his two week notice that morning And the more interesting thing was she testified about the phone call Mr Polkey allegedly got from Detective Stubbs and Miss Emma testimony was she said that Mr s Polkey said he had to take tomorrow evening off to meet with the sheriff So in other words that to me corroborates the fact that whether or not he told somebody I quit it more probable to s me that he did tell Miss Emma I giving my twoweek notice m because otherwise he wouldn have a reason to say as far as my t workday tomorrow is concerned I going to have to take the m evening off to meet with the sheriff His timesheet shows that he worked that day Apparently Miss Emma filled out that he had worked from 8 to 11 and then wrote got hurt on it The other thing too is I mean as far as just from a legal standpoint the only thing I can really compare it to is if I resigned today and I gave my twoweek notice if I walk back to my office and trip and fall or hurt my back I still entitled m to Workers Compensation benefits Now when I released to work eventually by my m physician I may not be entitled to any indemnity because I ve already intended to resign and I wasn intending to go back to t that job But I think for all our purposes today just based on all the testimony I heard it appears to me that Mr Polkey did indicate to Miss Emma that he was giving his twoweek notice He was intending to actually be at work the next day but had to meet with the sheriff So for those reasons you know I don really give a lot t of credibility to any defense based on the fact that he had told somebody he quit and then he got hurt after that All the evidence indicates he was on the clock that day As far as the incident itself Mr Polkey obviously didn t have any witnesses to the incident I solely going on his m testimony I entitled to rely on that testimony provided that m s it corroborated by the circumstances after the accident and nothing discredits it You know other evidence or other witnesses In this case the actual incident of tires falling on him and knocking him to the ground and landing on the outside of his or he testified that he had knee was corroborated by his water and leaf debris of some sort on him That was actually corroborated by Mr Raymond Miller and Mr Barber who indicated that when they came upon the scene shortly after that his pants were wet and he had said he had had an incident and he hurt his knee 5 s It also corroborated by the Riverside Medical Center records which indicate when he presented over there he said that a pile of tires fell against the outside of his leg and then he had a small joint effusion on his leg So there is objective evidence in this case you know to corroborate his version of the events I think Mr Polkey was a credible witness And I guess in general I think all of the defense witnesses were credible too It just turned into one of these situations where pretty much all of the testimony that I heard actually corroborated a lot of the aspects of Mr Polkey claim s As far as any attacks on his credibility I think a lot was made of these posthire questionnaires If you looking at it re from a 1208 aspect as far as you know did he make 1 misrepresentations on the posthire questionnaire that he filled out for Landworks I don think I can make a finding of that t sort given that Dee Myers testified that the posthire questionnaire was a different one from the one that was originally filled out and she testified that his personnel file was missing the original posthire questionnaire So you know as far as that goes I don know what was on any original post t hire questionnaire As far as the other posthire questionnaires being used to impeach I guess it just got to a point where I kept hearing over and over again the questioning about these prior accidents or incidents either job related or not job related At the end of the day there weren any that were in my opinion serious t Nothing that required like an extensive hospitalization no surgeries anything like that I guess you know I can believe his testimony when he says you know I didn fill it out truthfully for those other t employers because I was just afraid I wouldn get offered the t job I don think that sufficient to defeat any of his testimony t s regarding this incident I don think the two really have a lot to t do with each other mainly given the fact that they all seem like minor injuries He told the investigator Mr Hillman about all the incidents except for the WalMart incident with his ankle You know it clear from the statement he told him about the s incident with the pumpkin at Fresh Market the incident with his nose at Rouse his non work related broken toe his finger s injury at the tree cutting service and the car accident which he settled Again I mean I think there was much that was trying to be made of these incidents not being disclosed on posthire questionnaires My problem with it is it did nothing to impeach his credibility as far as this particular claim goes He met with the investigator just nine days after the incident and he told him everything So that line of questioning I guess really didn go t anywhere for me 0 Now he did have the one visit with Dr Chandler I think Dr Chandler actually even mentioned that he had some minimal swelling even on the date of that visit which was the 23rd After that point it seems like based on all this other attention that was being given to the sweatshirt incident and this alleged missing money and the fact that he had given his two week notice before the incident happened I think maybe in this case the adjuster just probably lost sight of the big picture which was you got an incident reported promptly ve immediately you got corroboration of that incident but all ve this other extraneous business about the theft or alleged theft I think probably clouded the adjuster judgment on this one s And obviously we heard the testimony that Mr ve Polkey wasn even working the day that the package was t delivered with the allegedly missing sweatshirt And Mr Hillman testified that his summary about the statement he took was actually inaccurate If you read the summary and you actually read the body of the statement it is inaccurate in some respects The testimony to me indicates that Landworks didn t have light duty you know at the time he ready or at least s lightduty attempting to go back to work at Landworks on a job He being told that there is nothing for him to do light s duty and that was essentially the end of it You know based on that fact scenario you know to me that a denial of returning s him back to work in any capacity So I find that he met his burden by clear and s convincing evidence that he entitled to temporary total s disability benefits from the date of accident January 20 2009 until based on the Albertson information s August 7th of 2009 And obviously he entitled to return to treatment with s Dr Chandler And as far as penalties and attorney fees again I do have to say there were a lot of things you know the incident with the sweatshirt and the incident with the alleged missing money and you know his giving them the two week notice before the incident happened again I think this probably would have turned out to be a very simple claim It may even have turned out to be a situation where he received some minimal conservative treatment and was good to go back at some type of job which would have cost a whole lot less than it already s cost I don find that the adjuster denial in this situation was t s reasonable on any level I think all this extraneous stuff not related to the work injury again kind of clouded the judgment on this one So for those reasons I find that the claim was not reasonably controverted 7 After a thorough review of the record presented on appeal we conclude that there was a reasonable factual basis presented for the OWC s judge factual finding that Mr Polkey sustained a workrelated injury to his left leg on January 20 2009 during his employment at Landworks Notably Mr Polkey reported the injury to his employer immediately after its occurrence demonstrated severe pain in his left knee to his coworkers and received their assistance in seeking emergency medical care Further objective evidence of injury was documented by Mr Polkey medical s providers With respect to the defendantsappellants contention that Mr Polkey was angry about his being accused of theft and in order to strike back at his employer d stage an accident only hours later we cannot say the OWC judge was clearly wrong in rejecting this assertion Although accusations had been made against Mr Polkey concerning the alleged theft of the package containing the coworker sweatshirt and missing petty cash s these allegations were not proven The testimony reflected that Mr Polkey was not working on the day the sweatshirt was delivered and that other employees had access to the petty cash We also find no error in the OWC judge finding that the evidence of s Mr Polkey failure to fully list all of his prior injuries on posthire s questionnaires was insufficient to defeat his credible testimony regarding the injury at Landworks The judge emphasized that all of the prior injuries were relatively minor in that no extensive medical treatment was required and that she believed Mr Polkey when he testified that he did not list these a The testimony further revealed that the only reason Mr Polkey was suspected with respect to the missing petty cash was that he was newly hired however he was not the only one under suspicion Further the testimony revealed that the cash was required by company policy to be kept in a locked box but the policy was not being followed during the time the cash went missing 2 injuries on posthire questionnaires because he was afraid he would not get the job Moreover we note that Mr Polkey did fully disclose these prior s injuries to the defendants investigator Justin Hillman on January 29 2009 nine days after the accident at issue herein and that none of the prior injuries were to Mr Polkey left knee s Defendants also argue on appeal that disability sufficient to warrant a finding of temporary total disability was not established Defendants nevertheless acknowledge that Mr Polkey was diagnosed with a left knee sprain and possible medial collateral ligament sprain and medial meniscus or tear and that he was placed on light duty instructed to wear a brace and bear weight on his leg as tolerated It is also not disputed that after receipt of Mr Hillman report referenced hereinabove the defendants informed Mr s Polkey that lightduty work was not available at Landworks We agree with the defendantsappellants to the extent that because Mr Polkey was able to perform lightduty work it cannot be said that he was totally disabled within the meaning of LSAR 23 Section S 1221 c 1 c 1 1221 provides that compensation for temporary total disability shall be awarded only if the employee proves by clear and convincing evidence We note the discrepancy between a letter prepared by Mr Hillman which summarized the content of the verbal interview and indicated that Mr Polkey disclosed to him only one prior work related injury and the transcript of this interview which clearly showed that Mr Polkey made a full disclosure of his prior injuries 5 See Louisiana Revised Statute 23 providing 1 1208 Nothing in this Title shall prohibit an employer from inquiring about previous injuries disabilities or other medical conditions and the employee shall answer truthfully failure to answer truthfully shall result in the employee forfeiture s of benefits under this Chanter provided said failure to answer directly relates to the medical condition for which a claim for benefits is made or affects the s employer ability to receive reimbursement from the second injury fund This Section shall not be enforceable unless the written form on which the inquiries about previous medical conditions are made contains a notice advising the employee that his failure to answer truthfully may result in his forfeiture of s worker compensation benefits under R 23 Such notice shall be S 1208 1 prominently displayed in bold faced block lettering of no less than ten point type Emphasis added N unaided by any presumption of disability that the employee is physically unable to engage in any employment or self employment regardless of the nature or character of the employment or self employment including but not limited to any and all oddlot employment sheltered employment or employment while working in any pain notwithstanding the location or availability of any such employment or self employment Although entitlement to temporary total disability was not established the record on appeal nevertheless supports an award of supplemental earnings benefits Under the provisions of LSAR 23 an S 1221 a 3 employee is entitled to receive supplemental earnings benefits if he sustains a work related injury that results in his inability to earn wages equal to ninety percent or more of his average monthly pre injury wage Initially the employee bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury resulted in his inability to earn that amount under the facts and circumstances of the individual case This analysis is necessarily a facts and circumstances one in which the court is mindful of the jurisprudential tenet that workers compensation is to be liberally construed in favor of coverage Seal v Gaylord Container Corporation 970688 p 8 La 97 02 12 704 So 1161 1166 2d Once the employee burden is met the burden shifts to the employer s who in order to defeat the employee claim for supplemental earnings s benefits must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee is physically able to perform a certain job and that the job was offered to the employee or that the job was available to the employee in his or the 10 s employer community or reasonable geographic region Seal v Gaylord Container Corporation 97 0688 at p 8 704 So at 1166 2d See also Hayes v Louisiana State Penitentiary 20060553 pp 12 13 La App 1 Cir 8 970 So 547 558 writ denied 20072258 La 1 07 15 2d 08 25 973 So 758 2d The OWC judge in this case determined that the injury to Mr Polkey sustained during his employment with Landworks resulted in his inability to earn the wages that he earned prior to the accident at issue We are unable to say the OWC judge manifestly erred in that determination Likewise the record supports a finding that Mr Polkey was unable to earn ninety percent of his pre accident wages His physician assigned him to light duty but there was no lightduty work available at Landworks Mr Polkey did not become employed again until August 2009 when he obtained a job with s Albertson Further Landworks failed to provide Mr Polkey with the medical treatment necessary for him to obtain resolution of his knee injury Thus we conclude that Mr Polkey sustained his burden of establishing a right to supplemental earning benefits which was uncontradicted by any evidence submitted on behalf of Landworks that would show lightduty We note that it is the employer who bears the burden of proving job availability and the s claimant postinjury earning capacity and the employer cannot shift this burden to the employee by pointing to his lack of effort in seeking post injury employment In any case as noted above an employer can discharge its burden by establishing the existence of a job within s claimant physical capabilities and within claimant or the employer community or reasonable s s geographic region the amount of wages that an employee with claimant experience and training s can expect to earn in that job and an actual position available for that particular job at the time that the claimant received notification of the job existence All of this can be proven without s the cooperation or participation of the employee Banks v Industrial Roofing Sheet Metal Works Inc 962840 p 12 n La 7 696 So 551 558 n 5 97 l 2d 5 7 Mr Polkey testified that he continued to suffer with the injury to his leg which included intermittent pain having a rubbing feeling in his knee having his knee give out on a regular basis and necessitating his continued use of Aleve and a knee brace Mr Polkey explained that he was unable to afford further medical treatment when the defendants refused to pay his medical bills but he expressed the desire to return for medical treatments if the OWC would reinstate his medical benefits because of continuing knee problems through the date of trial 11 work was otherwise available to Mr Polkey within the community or reasonable geographic region Although we find supplemental earnings benefits were owed rather than temporary total disability benefits no amendment to the amount of indemnity benefits awarded by the OWC is necessary since during the period of time for which the benefits were awarded it was not established that Mr Polkey earned any wages The amount of an award of supplemental earnings benefits is based upon the difference between the claimant pre s injury average monthly wage and the claimant proven postinjury monthly s earning capacity Seal v Gaylord Container Corporation 970688 at p 8 704 So at 1166 Therefore Mr Polkey was entitled to the full weekly 2d workers compensation benefit amount as awarded by the OWC Refusal to Admit Video Evidence or Order Continuance Defendants appellants next contend that the OWC judge erred in refusing to admit a video taken by an investigator allegedly showing Mr Polkey engaged in assisting in the erection of a tent or canopy even though the investigator in question failed to comply with his subpoena to appear at the trial of this matter or to allow a continuance of the trial in order to secure the testimony of the investigator On the issue of video surveillance the supreme court has stated that evidence in the form of moving pictures or videotapes must be approached with great caution because they show only intervals of the activities of the subject they do not show rest periods and do not reflect whether the subject is suffering pain during or after the activity Orgeron v Tri State Road Boring Inc 434 So 65 68 La 1983 2d Though surveillance video evidence can be admissible in a workers compensation proceeding at the discretion of the OWC judge when the proponent of such evidence fails to 12 establish a proper foundation and particularly when no witness is present to authenticate such evidence an OWC judge refusal to admit such evidence s is not error See Rareshide v Mobil Oil Corporation 971376 pp 1617 La App 4 Cir 4 719 So 494 5034 writ denied 981595 La 98 22 2d 98 9 10 726 So 28 In the instant case the investigator who made the 2d surveillance video Warren Martin was not available on the day of trial to authenticate the video evidence therefore we find no error in the refusal of the OWC judge to admit the evidence Defendantsappellants further contend it was error for the OWC judge to deny their motion for a continuance requested in accordance with LSA P C art 1602 for the purpose of procuring the attendance of Mr Martin to the trial Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1602 provides A continuance shall be granted if at the time a case is to be tried the party applying for the continuance shows that he has been unable with the exercise of due diligence to obtain evidence material to his case or that a material witness has absented himself without the contrivance of the party applying for the continuance Emphasis added In order to be entitled to a continuance the moving party has the burden of showing that he met the requisites set forth in Article 1602 Taking these factors into account the trial judge must consider the particular facts in each case in deciding whether to grant or deny a continuance Furthermore the trial court should also consider the effect a continuance would have on the administration of justice See Taylor v Sauls 991436 pp 56 La App 3 Cir 9 772 So 686 690 writs denied 2000 00 6 2d 2802 2000 2805 La 12 776 So 461 00 8 2d After an in camera inspection of the surveillance evidence submitted on proffer to the OWC this court concludes the OWC did not abuse its 13 discretion to deny a continuance to the defendantsappellants At most the evidence would show that on or about June 19 2009 a man who may have been Mr Polkey walked about a yard while talking on a cell phone without the aid of crutches or a knee brace for about two minutes that on or about June 20 2009 the same man in two separate one to two minute video clips was again walking around a yard that he then in a third thirty second video clip walked to a truck opened the passenger door bent from the waist to pick up a small object that had fallen from the truck and then got into the truck and that later that day in four separate one to two minute video clips the same man assisted two other men to assemble an outdoor canopy which was supported by what appeared to be PVC poles approximately four inches in diameter and that during this activity the subject man walked around used his arms to hold and manipulate the poles bent from the waist about four times and appeared to kneel for a few seconds to adjust a canopy tie onto a pole Considering the fact that these video clips were taken some five months after the accident at issue and that Mr Polkey did not deny being able to walk without assistance other than immediately following the accident or being able to lift objects and based on the other evidence contained in the record this video evidence would not have been sufficient to impeach Mr Polkey claim of a knee injury in this case Therefore we s are unable to say that the OWC judge erred in refusing to grant a continuance to allow defendantsappellants additional time to compel attendance of the investigator who made the surveillance videos 14 Imposition of Penalties Pursuant to LSAR 23 when an employer fails to S 1201 F commence payment of benefits timely to pay continued installments timely or to pay medical benefits timely both penalties and attorney fees are recoverable unless the claims are reasonably controverted A claim is reasonably controverted when the employer has sufficient factual andor medical information to counter evidence presented by the claimant Zavala v St Joe Brick Works 20072217 p 9 La App 1 Cir 10 999 08 31 2d So 13 2021 writ denied 20082827 La 1 999 So 762 See 09 30 2d also Joseph v J Merit Constructors Inc 2001 1666 p 9 La App 1 E Cir 6 822 So 72 7778 writ denied 20022295 La 4 840 02 21 2d 03 2d So 1201 In the instant case the OWC judge found that the defendants had no reasonable basis to controvert Mr Polkey claim and that he was therefore s 8 Louisiana Revised Statute 23 provides in pertinent part F 1201 Failure to provide payment in accordance with this Section or failure to consent to the employee request to select a treating physician or change physicians s when such consent is required by R 23 shall result in the assessment of a S 1121 penalty in an amount up to the greater of twelve percent of any unpaid compensation or medical benefits or fifty dollars per calendar day for each day in which any and all compensation or medical benefits remain unpaid or such consent is withheld together with reasonable attorney fees for each disputed claim however the fifty dollars per calendar day penalty shall not exceed a maximum of two thousand dollars in the aggregate for any claim The maximum amount of penalties which may be imposed at a hearing on the merits regardless of the number of penalties which might be imposed under this Section is eight thousand dollars An award of penalties and attorney fees at any hearing on the merits shall be res judicata as to any and all claims for which penalties may be imposed under this Section which precedes the date of the hearing Penalties shall be assessed in the following manner 1 Such penalty and attorney fees shall be assessed against either the employer or the insurer depending upon fault No workers compensation insurance policy shall provide that these sums shall be paid by the insurer if the workers compensation judge determines that the penalty and attorney fees are to be paid by the employer rather than the insurer 2 This Subsection shall not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control s 15 entitled to penalties and attorney fees We find no abuse of discretion in this ruling CONCLUSION For the reasons assigned herein the judgment of the Office of Workers Compensation is amended to reflect that supplemental earnings benefits were awarded to Joe Polkey rather than temporary total disability benefits we affirm the judgment in favor of Joe Polkey as amended All costs of this appeal are to be borne by defendantsappellants Landworks Inc and LUBA Casualty Insurance Company AMENDED AFFIRMED AS AMENDED During oral arguments in this case counsel for Mr Polkey requested an additional sum of attorney fees for representation of the claimant in this appeal However an appellee who wishes to have a judgment modified revised or reversed must file an answer to an appeal in accordance with LSAC art 2133 See LSA C art 2133 Comment a See also Starr v P C P Boudreaux 20070652 p 1 I La App 1 Cir 12 978 So 384 392 07 21 2d 9 II

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.