Culp v. Belden Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Claimant, a licensed practical nurse and certified audiometric technician, was employed at Belden Corporation's Jena plant as "plant nurse." On May 25, 1978, while stooping over to retrieve or store supplies under an examining table in the first-aid room at the plant, she sustained the injury which was subsequently diagnosed as a low back strain. She received conservative treatment from her family doctor, who referred her to Dr. C.W. Lowery, an orthopedic specialist in Alexandria. Plaintiff continued working at Belden until September 17, 1978, at which time, she stated, she felt she could not fulfill the responsibilities of her job. She moved to Beaumont, Texas in January, 1979. The medical testimony was that plaintiff had preexisting conditions of mild lordosis (sway back) and mild scoliosis (curvature of the spine), which were aggravated by the low back strain. The treatment prescribed by both specialists, Dr. Lowery of Alexandria and Dr. Starr of Beaumont, was conservative—pain medication, muscle relaxers and exercise to strengthen the muscles of the lower back. The consensus of expert opinion was that the plaintiff has a weak back, which she must learn to live with and which will cause her mild and intermittent pain in the future. She should not do any heavy lifting (over 25-30 pounds) nor excessive bending or stooping. The opinion of all the medical experts was that the claimant was able to return to work as an LPN in a job not requiring heavy lifting or excessive stoopi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 432 So. 2d 847 - Culp v. Belden Corp.

2. ““The odd lot doctrine is also applicable to substantial pain cases because a worker, who, due to his injury, can function only with substantial pain or with the help of fellow workers may not be considered a particularly desirable employee. Thus, if a claimant’s pain appreciably limits the types of work available to him and greatly diminishes his ability to compete in the labor market, he can be treated as an odd-lot worker and be awarded total disability, unless there is proof that jobs are realistically available to him.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 429 So. 2d 530 - Heath v. Goldrus Drilling Co.

3. “A claimant will not be held to be disabled solely because he suffers some residual pain and discomfort when he attempts to work following a work-related accident.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 451 So. 2d 1327 - Peck v. TG & Y STORES CO.