Opinion ID: 1677741
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Plaintiff's Permanently, Totally Disabled Status

Text: In this case, plaintiff testified at trial that there was no job he could perform. Plaintiff's testimony was corroborated fully by his treating physician, Dr. Heard. Dr. Heard's numerous reports were introduced into evidence. Consistently, Dr. Heard has opined that plaintiff will never be able to return to any type of manual employment. Dr. Heard's latest report in the record, dated November 15, 1999, expressly states his most current opinion; to wit: [t]he patient is unable to work but is encouraged to be as active as possible within the parameters of light and sedentary activities as tolerated. (Emphasis supplied.) We interpret this opinion to mean plaintiff is physically unable to work. Defendant failed to address Dr. Heard's latest report in its arguments to this court; rather, defendant focused its argument on a snippet from Dr. Heard's earlier report dated October 6, 1997, [9] which states: He does occasional labor work. He has an 8th grade education. He is studying for his G.E.D. He gave good effort for his functional capacities evaluation which shows him functioning at a sedentary level. Defendant's reliance on this stale report is misplaced for several reasons. First, the doctor's current opinion is dispositive. Second, and most significant, the quoted snippet is taken from the patient history portion of the report; in the recommendation portion of that same report is the oftrepeated opinion (verbatim to that in the latest report and repeated in multiple other reports issued by Dr. Heard over the last decade); to wit: [t]he patient is unable to work but is encouraged to be as active as possible within the parameters of light and sedentary activities as tolerated. (Emphasis supplied.) Even Dr. Gidman, defendant's doctor, to some extent corroborated plaintiff's inability to perform any type job. Dr. Gidman expressed strong reservations regarding plaintiff's vocational rehabilitation prospects, stating in his November 15, 1999 report: It would be very difficult to find any type of appropriate work for him since he has very limited skills as far as reading and writing, and his previous occupation has been as a laborer. The hearing officer gave two reasons for discounting Dr. Gidman's concerns regarding plaintiff's dim vocational rehabilitation prospects: (1) Dr. Gidman is not a vocational expert, and (2) the statute focuses on the physical components in order to establish temporary or permanent total disability. We find that neither of these reasons are valid. As discussed previously, under the unique facts of this case, a strict view confined to the physical ingredient is misplaced. And, as to Dr. Gidman's lack of expertise in vocational rehabilitation, we first note that the evidentiary rules are relaxed in workers' compensation proceeding. But, more important, even though no vocational expert was called at the last trial of this matter, at the earlier trial, defendant's own vocational rehabilitation expert, Chearis, testified that plaintiff was permanently, totally disabled and would never again be able to work. 93-1116, 638 So.2d at 660. He further testified that given plaintiff's limited training and the severity of his disability, the sole job offer that could be located for him was as a utility worker with defendant. Even that possible job, Chearis testified, was ruled out by Dr. Heard's restrictions of plaintiff to light sedentary employment with no repetitive squatting, stooping, or prolonged standing. Id. We therefore hold that plaintiff's unsuccessful attempt at the rehabilitation required by La.Rev.Stat. 23:1226 is a proper factor to consider, along with his physical incapacity, in deciding his disability status. And, after considering these factors we are satisfied that plaintiff has proved by clear and convincing evidence that he is permanently, totally disabled. [10]