ANTHONY J. DELLAVALLE, JR. Vs. DYNEGY MIDSTREAM SERVICES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ANTHONY J. DELLAVALLE, JR. * NO. 2002-CA-2479 * COURT OF APPEAL * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS DYNEGY MIDSTREAM SERVICES * * ******* TOBIAS, J., DISSENTS WITH REASONS: I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion to reverse the judgment of the trial court. We are required to decide whether a trial judge’s decision is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Stobart v. State Department of Transportation and Development, 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La. 1993); Alexander v. Pellerin Marble & Granite, 93-1698 (La. 1/14/94), 630 So.2d 706. From a word-for-word reading of the record (testimony, depositions, and medical records), it is clear that the trial court did not believe the plaintiff/appellant’s version of events surrounding the alleged incident and subsequent treatment. For example, the plaintiff/appellant’s version of that which he told his physician, Dr. George, varied from that which the physician recorded and understood. That is, the plaintiff/appellant’s version of the facts changed in an apparent effort to establish a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. As a result, the trial concluded that the plaintiff/appellant did not carry his burden of proof at trial. That is not to say that had I been the trier of fact that I would not have found for the plaintiff/appellant. However, insofar as the trial court has the discretion to make credibility determinations at trial when evidence conflicts, an appellate court is required to defer to the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions therefrom. I cannot say that the determinations of the workers’ compensation judge were clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. Stobart, supra at 882.
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.
