Adam Landry VS International Maintenance Corporation
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2010 CA 2175 ADAM LAN DRY VERSUS INTERNATIONAL MAINTENANCE CORPORATION Judgment rendered May 6 2011 0 On Appeal from the Office of Workers Compensation Administration District 5 Louisiana Docket No 01 04169 Honorable Pamela A Moses Laramore Judge Presiding ADAM LANDRY IN PROPER PERSON VACHERIE LA PLAINTIFFAPPELLANT CHARLES J DUHE JR ATTORNEY FOR BATON ROUGE LA DEFENDANT APPELLEE INTERNATIONAL MAINTENANCE CORPORATION BEFORE KUHN PETTIGREW AND HIGGINBOTHAM 33 PETTIGREW J In this workers compensation dispute the claimant Adam Landry alleges that he was injured as a result of his exposure to hydrogen cyanide on April 24 2001 while working for Turner Industries Group L formerly known as International Maintenance C Corporation hereinafter referred to as Turner Mr Landry filed a Disputed Claim for Compensation with the Office of Workers Compensation on June 13 2001 in which he asserted a claim for indemnity and medical benefits A trial on the merits was held on November 23 2009 After testimony and evidence was presented the workers compensation judge WO took the matter under advisement In an oral ruling issued on December 14 2009 the WC held that Mr Landry did not suffer a disability or require medical treatment as a result of his exposure to gases accidentally released at Turner on April 24 2001 A written judgment dismissing Mr Landry suit with prejudice was later signed on February 3 2010 s Following the dismissal of his suit Mr Landry filed the instant appeal On appeal Mr Landry claims the WCJ erred in finding that any medical complaints he experienced were not related to his exposure to hydrogen cyanide while working for Turner In response Turner asserts that Mr Landry did not carry his burden of proof at trial and establish that his exposure on April 24 2001 resulted in any disability or need for medical treatment Turner further asserts because Mr Landry has not shown his entitlement to any indemnity benefits medical benefits penalties or judicial interest the judgment of the WO should be affirmed After a thorough review of the record herein we find no error in the findings of the WO Thus we affirm the decision below in accordance with Uniform RulesCourts of Appeal Rule 2 16 4 6 and 8 and assess all costs associated with this A 2 appeal against the claimant Adam Landry AFFIRMED 2
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.
