Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

387 So. 2d 670

Chatelain v. American Can Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided July 10, 1980

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 1980-07-10

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Accepting plaintiff's petition's allegations as true, his petition would state a cause of action for workers’ compensation and it might therefore be argued that the judgment appealed from is not wholly correct. However, the context is that plaintiff has already tried and lost a suit for workers' compensation, 344 So.2d 1180 , this court finding that he did not prove his hearing problems were caused by his work environment. Thus, insofar as the petition is viewed as stating a cause of action for workers' compensation, defendant's exception of res judicata would require its dismissal. And, to the extent that plaintiff seeks any recovery other than workers' compensation, he does not state a cause of action because of the exclusivity of workers' compensation, R.S. 23:1032.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 169 So. 3d 296 - Arrant v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc.

Relies on 344 So. 2d 1180 - Chatelain v. American Can Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1980-07-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 2015

5 state decisions

201980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

REDMANN, Judge.

¶1Plaintiff appeals from the dismissal, on exception of no cause of action, of his suit against his corporate employer for damages, alleging that noise at his employment caused him a partial hearing loss and hypersensitivity to loud noises.

¶2Accepting plaintiff’s petition’s allegations as true, his petition would state a cause of action for workers’ compensation and it might therefore be argued that the judgment appealed from is not wholly correct. However, the context is that plaintiff has already tried and lost a suit for workers’ compensation, 344 So.2d 1180, this court finding that he did not prove his hearing problems were caused by his work environment. Thus, insofar as the petition is viewed as stating a cause of action for workers’ compensation, defendant’s exception of res judicata would require its dismissal. And, to the extent that plaintiff seeks any recovery other than workers’ compensation, he does not state a cause of action because of the exclusivity of workers’ compensation, R.S. 23:1032.

¶3Affirmed.

/387/so2d/670 · .json · Public domain