Jacqueline Gholar Peters VS Washington-St. Tammany Hopital
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOmSIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT tmI r J1rrt 1 Vo NUMBER 2006 CA 0568 fr1 JACQUELINE GHOLAR PETERS rfYI VERSUS WASIDNGTON ST TAMMANY HOSPITAL Judgment Rendered February The Appealed from Office of Workers Compensation 9 2007 Administration District 6 Docket Number 04 08283 Honorable Robert Varnado Judge Presiding Ernest Anderson Counsel for Plaintiff Appellant Slidell LA Jacqueline Gary Beauchamp Baton Rouge LA Counsel for Defendant BEFORE CARTER C J Gholar Peters Washington St Appellee Tammany Hospital WHIPPLE AND McDONALD JJ WHIPPLE J 2004 On November 9 deceased Jacqueline Gholar employee claimant Charles compensation on R Peters boxes desk on a at his contIibuted to his death OWC carry her burden of with St Accordingly rendered proving In its reasons a alleging therein that Mrs Peters in the process of s with a her claim prejudice work related accident against his employer Mrs Peters appeals findings and resulting denial of death benefits as follows according to the testimony was a long term reliable employee of Washington St Tammany Hospital It was alleged by Mr Peters surviving spouse that he sustained an unreported smashing of the middle finger accident while working behalf of Mrs Peters Each testified Mr Peters either told them he witnesses herself testified on they observed him without injmy p110r to Witnesses for the work and with injury thereafter or both hospital testified no such finger injury was reported and that Mr Peters was aware of the accident reporting procedures got hmi at work or Initially the Claimant has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of evidence that the accident on the job occurred with injury And the Court cites Clausen vs Dagg Construction which is a First Circuit case in 2002 Given the burden of proof using the Claimant s testimony alone may be sufficient to discharge this burden provided two elements are satisfied No 1 no other evidence discredits worker s St that Mrs Peters failed to Mr Peters including on sought death benefits that her husband suffered for judgment the OWC stated Several for staph infection that caused judgment finding Tammany Hospital challenging the OWC disputed claim place of employment Washington injury Accordingly the OWC dismissed Washington the wife of the 2005 after trial of the matter the Office of Workers On October 25 Compensation a finger while Tammany Hospital which ultimately resulted in or filed behalf of her deceased husband November 7 2003 Charles Peters crushed his setting heavy Peters or version of the accident testimony is corroborated by alleged incident seIious doubt upon the and No 2 the worker s casts the circumstances 2 following the the And Court Company which is vs case at Jackson Louisiana case Also the Bluno case Supreme Comi 1992 hand Mr Peters died November 21st 2003 days after the alleged November 7th accident there exists obviously they were they observed before Without Thus record of his version of events no and after November the apparent bias on was the 7th Debbie of testimony supervisor and Jennifer Williams Mr Peters Mrs date only that of family and friends who recounted told by the decedent prior to death and or what November 7th what Insurance Savant vs 1997 First Circuit a Harbert International In the 14 cites McNutt coworker alleged McNutt worked with Mr Peters the week of the accident She and Mrs Williams testify sic he did not repOli an injmy or accident sustained at work As his supervisor Mrs Williams testified he out past filling the being Mr Peters helped Thus Mr Peters accident reports others in the was aware of procedure finger injury to Ms Williams he did not report that this injmy took place on the job Given the apparent severity of the injmy it is concluded that Mr Peters had the opportunity to repOli a work related accident Although Mr Peters did mention a given the totality of evidence the Comi concludes the survivors failed to meet their burden of proof that an accident Fmiher Therefore the claim is dismissed with occuned while at work prejudice The benefits employee has the preponderance Cir 9 26 03 So at the Plaintiff s expense who claims burden of 2d 993 Whether a 0410 La by App Factual manifest Guidry st enor or work related in clearly a McCoy workers v The 2d 849 915 So are App 1 3 Cir 15 2 La by proving 1 App La 19 04 a a st 862 work questions of fact to be 2004 850 compensation st accident City of Hammond wrong standard of review Construction 2001 0077 La compensation Brewer 2002 2693 testimony is credible Cir 5 6 05 findings a workers writ denied 2003 2958 625 the trier of fact 1 v to collect claimant has canied his burden of related accident and whether determined proving of the evidence 857 So 2d 623 right a 02 case are subject Clausen v to the D A G G 807 So 2d 1199 1202 816 So 2d 851 writ denied 2002 0824 La 5 24 02 elTor rule the right are comi reviewing wrong but whether or Pain Institute 2003 1672 If the fact finder in its that had it been So court sitting 1112 its 2d 763 879 So 765 light of the record reviewed reverse though convinced even it would have Mutual Insurance the weighed Company 558 testimony and reasonable inferences of fact should court may feel that though the appellate reasonable are as Rosell ESCO v 549 2d 840 844 La 1989 So Mr Williams on even evaluations and inferences own 04 findings Gulf Coast v Where there is conflict in the credibility disturbed upon review not be may not Liberty v Lizana reasonable are the trier of fact 1990 reasonable evaluations of decide whether the factual reasonable in appeal as La they are Sistler differently 2d 1106 of not 14 App 1st Cir 5 La findings s entirety the evidence does Under the manifest the co job They he reported that that he only he had smashed his Jacqueline to had left for the day the his day he finger band aids on the supervisor but that he was next on Friday the day was going scheduled she sent him to the on his was job Mr Peters or at work Peters testified that Mr Peters told her that he did not finger and hospital to to it occulTed because she report it report to to his work hurting really bad but all they did send him back to work husband also told her that he had finger injured his finger smashed it the other further testified that Mr Peters told her that when he supervisor Debbie supervIsor hospital employees and family members testified that report the injury Tuesday never testified that he stated told them that Moreover and Jennifer McNutt worker testified that Mr Peters Other day had Peters requested and that his 4 a supervisor Jacqueline reported it was put a on Peters to couple his of She testified that her couple of days off because his supervisor had denied his request because she short staffed was the time at daughter Rhonda Mr Peters Cotton also testified that her father had told her that he had off from his Peters supervisor to Ms see allowing him questioned when him repOlied Williams a injured his hand work when she at and scope of his The replace apologized the to to to injury requested his at family to that Mr Peters had was an to his allegation that he by the safety supervisor of had been made that Mr Peters in the course At that time Peters and Rhonda Cotton that Mr Peters time off from work and that Ms Williams hospital to failing Ms to grant his request Williams Mr credibility determination by a noted as Moreover we repOlied by note Ms Williams in the leu on a was the trial court that the to them family members and Peters the trier of co unable to that he was expressly remaining witnesses injured his finger at workers of Mr Peters who question Mr Peters about his injury respirator Ms Williams injury is corroborated by for testimony of supervisor who 2Moreover such accept the testimony of Mr Peters wife and daughter be unbiased was the with the work consisted of because he any I who testified that Mr Peters I contacted the employment whether that of his was that there allegation an Clearly this led supervisor testimony to However requested injury during work hours and while acting conflicted deemed hospital she apologized specifically denied making aware testimony of Jacqueline repOlied directly only made and advised that hospital had sustained his or to injmy to her concerning his finger prior work related was as the the time off that he had death and that she fact at Fmiher Ms Williams reiterated her apology never came not family for had no one Both Mrs Peters and Ms Cotton testified that when Ms Williams Mr him the because she had supervisor which was denied requested time testimony concerning Jennifer McNutt Mr Peters 5 co Mr Peters worker failure to repOli the testified they Accordingly faced with personal friends of were as the OWC Mr Peters in its acknowledged between them is manifestly ESCO 2d 549 So cannot say enoneous the other witnesses in this case is that the factfinder it was was more s s are choice See Rosell wrong finding that v the credible that that of clearly wrong and we see not church or for judgment the OWC Ms Williams and Ms McNutt testimony of work Hence because there clearly or Accordingly 844 at we reasons herein conflicting testimonial evidence conflicting views of the evidence through no legal en or in the judgment of dismissal After thorough review of the record and evidence a the considering credibility determinations that the record failed to suffered reasonably supports establish injury an by in Mrs Peter s petition For the reasons this for cannot say was reasons a are manifestly to judgment that Mrs that we 2 16 2A 5 6 Peters Peters find that the to make its dismissing and for those set forth in the OWC 25 2005 Jacqueline 7 Mr of the OWC judgment is affirmed Gholar Peters and 8 LSA R S 23 1310 5F AFFIRMED 6 and published s Costs of This summary is issued in accordance with the Uniform Rules Appeal Rule conclude enoneous stated above assessed Because we reasonable basis upon which that the judgment the October appeal disposition we the OWC finding s work related accident record establishes that OWC had determinations the OWC by preponderance of the evidence a a made in this matter and Courts of in accordance with
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.
