Title: Landry v. Ferguson

State: louisiana

Issuer: Louisiana Supreme Court

Document:

279 So. 2d 185 (1973) Wilson J. LANDRY v. Nelson FERGUSON. No. 52714. Supreme Court of Louisiana. June 11, 1973. Larry A. Roach, Lake Charles, for plaintiff-applicant. Grenese R. Jackson, Jennings, for defendant-respondent. DIXON, Justice. Plaintiff Wilson J. Landry sued his employer, Nelson Ferguson, pursuant to the workmen's compensation statutes for medical expenses and compensation. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's suit on defendant's exception of one year prescription. R.S. 23:1209. The Court of Appeal reversed *186 in part, finding that only the plaintiff's claim for medical expenses had not prescribed. La.App., 264 So. 2d 746 (1972). We granted plaintiff's request for a writ of certiorari. 262 La. 1129, 266 So. 2d 433 (1972). In 1967, plaintiff was employed as a farm laborer by defendant, a rice farmer. On September 1, 1967, plaintiff suffered a compound comminuted fracture of the lower third of the tibia of the left leg. Defendant Ferguson arranged for plaintiff's treatment by Dr. Edmund Campbell, an orthopedic surgeon practicing in Lake Charles, and paid him his regular wages until February or March, 1968, when plaintiff, with the aid of a leg brace, was able to return to most of his regular duties. Plaintiff continued to work for the defendant until May, 1969, when he quit to undergo bone graft surgery to correct the healing of his fracture. This suit was filed in July, 1969. The Court of Appeal found that the defendant had promised to pay plaintiff's medical bills. Thus, he was "estopped to deny, by way of prescription, his liability for medical expenses." 264 So. 2d at 749. The court found that defendant had made no such assurances concerning weekly compensation benefits and concluded that plaintiff's claim for compensation had prescribed. With this latter conclusion, we disagree. Plaintiff, a poorly educated farm laborer, testified concerning his reason for waiting almost two years before making his claim for workmen's compensation benefits and medical expenses: Defendant Ferguson did not deny that he promised to "take care" of the plaintiff: An employer who lulls an injured employee into a false sense of security by promising to "take care" of him cannot later interpose a plea of prescription to the plaintiff's untimely suit for workmen's compensation benefits. See, Mella v. Continental Emsco, 189 So. 2d 716 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1966), Carpenter v. E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., 194 So. 99 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1940). Ferguson's promise to "take care" of plaintiff lulled him into a false sense of security and caused him to forego the timely prosecution of his claim for both medical expenses and compensation. Therefore, Ferguson cannot now rely on prescription as a defense to plaintiff's claims. The exception of prescription is overruled, and all costs of these proceedings are assessed to the defendant. The case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.