Opinion ID: 1878949
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: La Rev.Stat. 23:1021(7)(e)

Text: The controlling statutory provision in this case is La.Rev.Stat. 23:1021(7)(e), enacted in 1989, which imposes an elevated burden of proof on claimants seeking to recover compensation benefits for heart-related or perivascular injuries; [5] particularly, it provides: A heart-related or perivascular injury, illness, or death shall not be considered a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course and scope of employment and is not compensable pursuant to this Chapter unless it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that: (i) The physical work stress was extraordinary and unusual in comparison to the stress or exertion experienced by the average employee in that occupation, and (ii) The physical work stress or exertion, and not some other source of stress or preexisting condition, was the predominant and major cause of the heart-related or perivascular injury, illness, or death. This statute is significant in that it changed the law regarding such injuries in three respects. Harold v. La Belle Maison Apartments, 94-0889 (La.10/17/94), 643 So.2d 752. First, it imposes a heightened burden of proofclear and convincingwhich is an intermediate standard falling somewhere between the ordinary preponderance of the evidence civil standard and the beyond a reasonable doubt criminal standard. Black's Law Dictionary 227 (5th ed. 1979). Second, it requires the physical work stress be compared to the stress experienced by the average employee in that occupation as opposed to the stress of every day life. Finally, it heightens the required causal link between that work stress and the heart injury by requiring the physical work stress to be the predominant and major cause of the heart-related or perivascular injury. Harold, 94-0889 at p. 5, 643 So.2d at 755. Significantly, the statute restricts such compensable perivascular injuries to those arising out of physical, as opposed to mental, stress. In sum, the statute redefines for perivascular injuries the term accident in the negative. As a noted scholar in this area summarizes the statutory definition: As for vascular accidents, they are defined to be non-compensable unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the physical stress on the job was extraordinary and unusual in comparison to the stress or exertion experienced by the average employee in that occupation and the physical job stress was the predominant and major cause of the vascular accident. H. Alston Johnson, Workers' Compensation, 50 La. L.Rev. 391, 394 (1989).