Case Name: Vernon L. BARBER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAKE CHARLES PIPE AND SUPPLY COMPANY, and Administrator, Division of Employment Security of Department of Labor, Defendants-Appellees
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1962-12-18
Citations: 148 So. 2d 326
Docket Number: No. 713
Parties: Vernon L. BARBER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAKE CHARLES PIPE AND SUPPLY COMPANY, and Administrator, Division of Employment Security of Department of Labor, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TATE, FRUGÉ and SAVOY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 148
Pages: 326–329

Head Matter:
Vernon L. BARBER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAKE CHARLES PIPE AND SUPPLY COMPANY, and Administrator, Division of Employment Security of Department of Labor, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 713.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Third Circuit.
Dec. 18, 1962.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 17, 1963.
Rogers & McHale, by Jack Rogers, Lake Charles, for plaintiff-appellant.
Marion Weimer, Baton Rouge, and Melvin L. Bellar, Shreveport, Steward & Bond, by W. E. Bond, Lake Charles, for defendants-appellees.
Before TATE, FRUGÉ and SAVOY, JJ.

Opinion:
FRUGE, Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court, reversing a decision of the Board of Review of the Division of Employment Security of the Department of Labor, State of Louisiana, and denying plaintiff unemployment benefits.
Initially the Appeals Referee denied plaintiff unemployment benefits and this decision was affirmed by the Board of Review. Subsequently plaintiff appealed 'to the Fourteenth Judicial District Court which remanded the case back to the Board with instructions to inquire as to whether plaintiff could work at light duty free from pain following an injqry which he received. Following this inquiry, the Board of Review reversed its position and held that plaintiff was entitled to unemployment bene^ fits. On appeal to the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, the Board of Review's holding was reversed and plaintiff's demands rejected.
The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether appellant contacted his employer timely for reinstatement to his job after being absent from his employment because of a temporary disability. Upon final review of this matter, the Board of Review found that claimant had presented sufficient evidence to show that he did contact his employer for reinstatement to his job as soon as he was discharged by his physician as physically able to return to work. (Tr. 82.)
In commenting on the scope of .review, with regard to the findings of fact by the Board, we stated in'the recent decision of Lee v. Brown, La.App., 148 So.2d 321, that:
"On review by the courts, the find- , ings of fact by the board are conclusive 'if supported by sufficient evidence', LSA-R.S. 23:1634. At the judicial review, 'no additional evidence shall be received by the court, but the court may order additional evidence to be taken before the board of review' (and thereafter the board may modify its findings before filing the additional evidence with the court), LSA-R.S. 23:1634."
Thus, in the case at bar, we cannot question the findings of fact by the board where such is supported by evidence entitled to judicial acceptance.
After reviewing the record, in the instant case, we are of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion of the Board that claimant had timely contacted his employer for reinstatement to his job. Therefore, claimant, as a matter of law did not abandon his employment and is entitled to receive unemployment compensation benefits.
Additionally, counsel for defendants contends that claimant failed to keep his employer informed as to the reasons for his absence. It is true that we stated in Prenell v. Brown, La.App., 130 So.2d 520, that:
"Ordinarily, where an employee leaves his employment because of a temporary disability with the expectation of later returning to work, he is required to give a timely notice to his employer or otherwise manifest an intention not to abandon his employment. An employee who neglects to take such precautions to guard his job as a reasonable prudent person would take, and who is not permitted to return to his work in consequence thereof, is not entitled to unemployment compensation." (Citations omitted.)
However, in the case at bar, plaintiff's employer was fully aware of the nature of plaintiff's injury, since he was injured on the job and directed to see the company doctor. Although claimant subsequently went to a doctor of his own choice, the company doctor was kept informed of his progress. We think that under these circumstances the claimant's employer had adequate notice of plaintiff's intention to return to his job after recovery from his injury.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is annulled and set aside, and the case is remanded to the Board of Review, Division of Employment Security, Department of Labor, State of Louisiana.
Reversed and remanded.