Case Name: Frank Ed GUIDRY, Claimant-Appellant, v. GUEYDAN COOPERATIVE DRYER, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1997-12-10
Citations: 706 So. 2d 146
Docket Number: No. 97-874
Parties: Frank Ed GUIDRY, Claimant-Appellant, v. GUEYDAN COOPERATIVE DRYER, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before THIBODEAUX, AMY and SULLIVAN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 706
Pages: 146–152

Head Matter:
Frank Ed GUIDRY, Claimant-Appellant, v. GUEYDAN COOPERATIVE DRYER, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 97-874.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
Dec. 10, 1997.
Order on Rehearing March 12, 1998.
Bernard Francis Duhon, Abbeville, for Frank Ed Guidry.
Sammie M. Henry, Baton Rouge, for Gueydan Co-op Dryer, Inc.
Before THIBODEAUX, AMY and SULLIVAN, JJ.

Opinion:
hAMY, Judge.
Frank Ed Guidry appeals the workers' compensation judge's grant of the defendant's peremptory exception of no cause of action/no right of action. For the following reasons, we reverse.
DISCUSSION OF THE RECORD
On September 16, 1996, Frank Ed Guidry, entered into a contract with the defendant, Gueydan Cooperative Dryer, Inc., to perform welding repair work. In return for his services, Mr. Guidry was to be paid an hourly rate of $25.00. Then, on October 17, 1996, several weeks into the repairs, Mr. Guidry was allegedly injured when the hoist he was using to reach the rice dryer he was repairing broke, causing him to fall four feet onto a concrete surface, injuring his back.
|2Mr. Guidry, claiming entitlement to medical and workers' compensation benefits, filed a disputed claim for compensation with the Office of Workers' Compensation. In response, Gueydan Cooperative Dryer, Inc. filed a peremptory exception of no cause of action/no right of action. On May 6, 1997, "[ajfter hearing the testimony, reviewing the documentary evidence and applying] the law thereto," the workers' compensation judge found Mr. Guidry to be an independent contractor, not engaged in manual labor or performing work that was "part of the trade, business or occupation of Gueydan Cooperative Dryer, a rice drying cooperative." In so finding, the workers' compensation judge sustained the exception of no cause of action/no right of action and dismissed Mr. Guidry's claim with prejudice.
Mr. Guidry appeals, assigning numerous assignments of error. However, we find that review of assignment number two, that "[t]he trial court was clearly wrong and made errors of law in sustaining the Exception of No Cause of Action[,]" is dispositive of this appeal. Therefore, we pretermit discussion on Mr. Guidry's remaining assignments of error.
LAW
As in the case sub judiee, where .there are no applicable provisions in the Louisiana Worker's Compensation Act, procedural matters are controlled by the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure. Piper v. Dillard's Dep't Store, 621 So.2d 865 (La.App. 4 Cir.), unit denied, 627 So.2d 654 (La.1993). Article 931 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure provides for instances when evidence is admissible to | gsupport or controvert a peremptory exception. While evidence is allowed in most cases, article 931 expressly prohibits the introduction of evidence when the peremptory exception under consideration is that the petition fails to state a cause of action. La.Code Civ.P. art. 931. As such, when testing the legal sufficiency of the petition to state a cause of action, a court or tribunal must look only to the face of the petition to ascertain whether there are sufficient facts alleged to establish a case cognizable in law. Craft v. Allstate Ins. Co., 95-160 (La.App. 3 Cir. 8/30/95), 663 So.2d 116, unit denied, 95-2403 (La.12/15/95), 664 So.2d 454. If sufficient facts do exist, the peremptory exception of no cause of action must fail. Rebman v. Reed, 286 So.2d 341 (La.1973). For purposes of the determination, all allegations presented in the petition are accepted as true, and any doubts are to be resolved in favor of the sufficiency of the petition. Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94), 635 So.2d 188.
After reviewing Mr. Guidry's disputed claim form, as amended, we find that the allegations, when accepted as true, support a cause of action for workers' compensation benefits. In the completed LDOL-WC 1008, Mr. Guidry alleged that he was an independent contract welder injured while "welding plates on the rice dryer" at Gueydan Cooperative Dryer, Inc. Subsequently, Mr. Guidry amended his petition to' add that he was entitled to compensation under the "manual labor exception to the Contractor exemption [to] the Compensation act." Therefore, while Mr. Guidry's status, as a manual laborer injured while carrying out contracted services that are part of the employer's trade, business, or occupation, must be 14proven by him at a hearing on the merits, the workers' compensation judge erred when she found that the claimant's petition for compensation did not state a cause of action. Further, it was error for the workers' compensation tribunal to allow testimony on this question .
Accordingly, we find that the workers' compensation judge erred as a matter of law when she dismissed Mr. Guidry's claim on a peremptory exception of no cause of action. Since we find that the claimant's petition alleged sufficient facts to sustain a cause of action, "as a matter of substantial justice, [he is] entitled to have his case heard further." Craft, 95-160, p. 6,663 So.2d at 118.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the workers' compensation judge sustaining the defendant's exception of no cause of action is reversed. The matter is remanded to the Office of Workers' Compensation for further proceedings. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the defendant,' Gueydan Cooperative Dryer, Inc.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
. We note that the alternative figure of $23.00 per hour also appears in the record. However, this discrepancy does not affect our result.
. Although the defendant titled the exception as a no cause of action/no right of action, the exception in substance was an exception of no cause of action.
. In Lushute v. Diesi, 354 So.2d 179, 182 (La. 1977), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that for an independent contractor to be covered under workers' compensation law, he must show that "a substantial part of his work time is spent in manual labor in carrying out the terms of his contract with the principal and the work performed by him is a part of the principal's trade, business or occupation." While Lushute is the last pronouncement by our highest court on this issue, and therefore controlling, we note the adverse commentary which addresses the position that La.R.S. 23:1021 and La.R.S. 23:1061 should not be read together. See 13 H. Alston Johnson, III, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise, Workers' Compensation Law and Practice § 78 (3d ed.1994).
. We note that the claimant raises this issue in his first assignment of error, that the trial court erred in allowing evidence to support the exception of no cause of action/no right of action. However, while we agree with claimant's contention, further discussion is unnecessary.