Case Name: Mrs. Linda M. PRATTINI v. James W. BENNETT, Sr., and Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1973-07-19
Citations: 281 So. 2d 187
Docket Number: No. 5543
Parties: Mrs. Linda M. PRATTINI v. James W. BENNETT, Sr., and Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin.
Judges: Before REDMANN, LEMMON and STOULIG, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 281
Pages: 187–189

Head Matter:
Mrs. Linda M. PRATTINI v. James W. BENNETT, Sr., and Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin.
No. 5543.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
July 19, 1973.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 21, 1973.
Writ Refused Oct. 12, 1973.
Samuel C. Gainsburgh, Kierr & Gains-burgh, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.
Ethel H. Cohen, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.
Before REDMANN, LEMMON and STOULIG, JJ.

Opinion:
REDMANN, Judge.
Defendants by this appeal seek reduction of a personal injury award. Plaintiff by answer seeks damages for frivolous appeal.
Plaintiff's injury was a cervical strain. Asymptomatic disc-narrowing and arthritic changes pre-existed. Treatment included physical therapy thrice weekly for three months, traction thrice weekly for four months, and use of a special collar and pillow. Over four months after the accident a consulting neuro-surgeon still found muscle spasm. A year after the accident defendant's orthopedist concluded plaintiff "suffers from a resolving strain" of cervical muscular and ligament structure (our emphasis). There was expert opinion that plaintiff's residual disability still existed shortly before trial and that her recovery would remain incomplete.
This evidence places the trial judge's $10,000 award, if towards the higher limit, within his "much discretion", C.C. art. 1934(3).
Defense counsel ably points out evidence that would have supported a lower award, but we find no abuse of the trial court's discretion.
Plaintiff's claim of frivolous appeal makes an able argument against appellate review of facts. However, we find this case no more one-sided than many others, and La.Const. art. 7, § 29 does oblige us to review facts. We conclude damages for frivolous appeal should not be awarded.
The judgment is affirmed.