JOE NATHAN CREAR v. DARLING INGREDIENTS INC (2025)

In this workers’ compensation proceeding, the claimant appeals a judgment that found he failed to establish a causal connection between his employment and his alleged occupational disease and dismissed his claim. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Joe Nathan Crear was employed by Darling Ingredients, Inc. (Darling) as a grease trap driver from July 31, 2013, through December 30, 2021. Mr. Crear filed a pro se disputed claim for workers’ compensation benefits against Darling on October 6, 2022. Therein, Mr. Crear alleged he had sustained injuries to both of his hands, specifically “muscular skeleton disorder” and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, in connection with his employment with Darling. Mr. Crear alleged that no wage benefits had been paid and that no medical treatment had been authorized. Mr. Crear identified “on job” accident dates of April 2015, August 2019, and October 2021.

In answering Mr. Crear's claim, Darling admitted to Mr. Crear's previous employment, but denied that Mr. Crear's employment caused him to suffer an injury or develop an occupational disease. Thus, Darling contended that Mr. Crear was not entitled to benefits pursuant to the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA), LSA-R.S. 23:1031 et seq.

The matter came for trial on January 23, 2024. Mr. Crear represented himself pro se. Following trial, the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) took the matter under advisement. On March 6, 2024, the WCJ signed a written judgment that provided, in pertinent part:

The court has considered the entire record in this matter: the pleadings, the witnesses, and the exhibits. It has concluded from the evidence before it the following:

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED[,] and DECREED that judgment is rendered in favor of Darling Ingredients, Inc. and against Joe Nathan Crear.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED[,] and DECREED that Joe Nathan Crear failed to carry his burden to prove that there was a causal link between his occupation and employment with Darling Ingredients, Inc., and his carpal tunnel and upper extremity issues.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED[,] and DECREED that Joe Nathan Crear's demands for medical, indemnity, and any other workers’ compensation benefits are not compensable pursuant to [LSA-R.S.] 23:1031.1 and are denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED[,] and DECREED that this docket number is dismissed with prejudice.

The WCJ issued written reasons for judgment the same day. Mr. Crear appeals.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

As in the proceedings below, Mr. Crear is pursuing the subject appeal pro se. Although his brief does not comply with Rule 2-12.4 of the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, the courts of this state have considered briefs in improper form when filed by pro se claimants. See Jones v. International Maintenance Corporation, 2010-2181 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/6/11), 64 So.3d 893, 895. Further, appeals are favored in law, must be maintained wherever possible, and should not be dismissed on mere technicalities. Lewis v. Louisiana State Judicial Review Board, 2018-0204 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/2/18), 264 So. 3d 1208, 1211, writ denied, 2018-1856 (La. 1/28/19), 263 So.3d 427. Accordingly, we will consider the merits of Mr. Crear's appeal.¹ See Putman v. Quality Distribution, Inc., 2011-0306 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/30/11), 77 So.3d 318, 320. Construing Mr. Crear's brief broadly, we interpret his argument to be that the WCJ manifestly erred in finding that Mr. Crear did not meet his burden of proving that his medical conditions were caused by his employment with Darling and dismissing Mr. Crear's claim on that basis. See Lands v. Tony's Seafood, 2005-1302 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/9/06), 939 So.2d 375, 375.

In order for an employee to receive workers’ compensation benefits under the WCA, he has the burden of proving either that he received personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment, or that he contracted an occupational disease. See LSA-R.S. 23:1031(A); LSA-R.S. 23:1031.1(A); see also LeCompte v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, 2020-0333 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/26/21), 324 So.3d 1066, 1068, writ denied, 2021-00744 (La. 10/5/21), 325 So.3d 358. An “Accident” is defined by LSA-R.S. 23:1021(1) as “an unexpected or unforeseen actual, identifiable, precipitous event happening suddenly or violently, with or without human fault, and directly producing at the time objective findings of an injury which is more than simply a gradual deterioration or progressive degeneration.” An occupational disease is defined by LSA-R.S. 23:1031.1(B) as follows:

An occupational disease means only that disease or illness which is due to causes and conditions characteristic of and peculiar to the particular trade, occupation, process, or employment in which the employee is exposed to such disease. Occupational disease shall include injuries due to work-related carpal tunnel syndrome. Degenerative disc disease, spinal stenosis, arthritis of any type, mental illness, and heart-related or perivascular disease are specifically excluded from the classification of an occupational disease for the purpose of this Section.

In this matter, although Mr. Crear identified several accident dates in his disputed claim for compensation benefits, he argues that his medical conditions were caused by continuous and repetitive motions involved with his job duties as a grease trap driver. Therefore, in order to establish that he is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits under the WCA, Mr. Crear was required to prove that he contracted an occupational disease in the course and scope of his employment with Darling. See LeCompte, 324 So.3d at 1068.

The Louisiana Supreme Court has described an occupational disease as one in which there is a demonstrated causal link between the particular disease or illness and the occupation. Arrant v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc., 2013-2878 (La. 5/5/15), 169 So.3d 296, 309. The causal link between the employee's illness and work-related duties must be established by a reasonable probability. Williams v. Temple Inland, Inc., 2008-2153 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/23/09), 30 So.3d 760, 762. In order to support a finding of an occupational disease, expert testimony in the form of certified reports, depositions, or oral examination in open court, is required. Allred v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 2012-0424 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/16/13), 2013 WL 1912653, *4 (unpublished), writ denied, 2013-1109 (La. 8/30/13), 120 So.3d 266, citing Fite v. Louisiana Title Company, 2002-2607 (La. 6/27/03), 852 So.2d 983, 984 (per curiam).

The determination of whether an employee has carried his burden of proof is factual. Thus, the WCJ's factual findings are reviewed on appeal for manifest error. Calhoun v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 2022-0478 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/16/22), 357 So.3d 354, 359. In applying the manifest error standard, this court must determine whether the WCJ's conclusion was reasonable, not whether the WCJ was right or wrong. If the WCJ's findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse, even if convinced that it would have weighed the evidence differently if it had been sitting as the trier of fact. Where two permissible views of the evidence exist, the WCJ's choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Further, the manifest error standard demands great deference to the WCJ's findings that are based on determinations of a witness's credibility. Id.

At the trial of this matter, Mr. Crear testified on his own behalf. Mr. Crear testified that he did not have problems with his hands when he began working for Darling in 2013; that he was diagnosed with muscular skeleton disorder in 2015; that his “musculoskeletal disorder came from [his] continuous, repetition motion [sic] of the job”; that he had surgery on his left hand in 2019; and that he had surgery on his right hand in 2021. Mr. Crear stated he is no longer able to perform his job duties. On cross-examination, Mr. Crear admitted that he could not identify a medical record that diagnosed him with muscular skeleton disorder “in that term[,]” nor could he identify a medical record that reflected he told his medical providers he developed carpal tunnel syndrome while working for Darling.

Mr. Crear offered into evidence certified medical records from his July 25, 2013 pre-employment physical at North Oaks Health System. The North Oaks records reflect that Mark S. Daunis, M.D., assessed Mr. Crear and found he met the applicable standards for employment. Mr. Crear also offered into evidence the April 22, 2015 accident report he submitted to Darling. Therein, Mr. Crear documented that he had injured both of his hands while “pumping out” grease traps on his job route and denied prior injury to his hands.²

Mr. Crear and Darling both offered into evidence Darling's “Job Description” for Mr. Crear's position as a Grease Trap Driver. The job summary stated that a Grease Trap Driver “collects waste cooking oil from grease traps at restaurants, grocery stores, schools, and hospitals by utilizing a pumper truck.” The physical demands of the position were described as constantly requiring the employee to walk, stand, sit, climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crawl, and crouch; occasionally requiring the employee to push or pull up to 100 pounds; occasionally requiring the employee to lift up to 80 pounds; frequently requiring the employee to lift, push, pull, or carry up to 50 pounds; and regularly requiring the employee to “reach with hands and arms.”

Darling offered into evidence certified medical records from the Louisiana Hand to Shoulder Center, LLC. The Hand to Shoulder Center medical records reflected that Mr. Crear was examined by Blane Adam Sessions, M.D., on August 16, 2019. Dr. Sessions noted that Mr. Crear reported bilateral hand pain with a gradual onset and duration of six years. However, at trial, Mr. Crear testified that he did not recall telling Dr. Sessions that his hand and wrist pain had been present for six years. The Hand to Shoulder medical records further reflected that, following a bilateral EMG study of Mr. Crear's upper extremities, Dr. Sessions documented that Mr. Crear had “severe bilateral” carpal tunnel syndrome and recommended surgery. Mr. Crear returned to Dr. Sessions for surgery on his left hand on August 29, 2019. Subsequently, Mr. Crear returned for a post-operative appointment on September 6, 2019. On October 29, 2021, Dr. Sessions released Mr. Crear for unrestricted full duty at work beginning November 15, 2021.³

As set forth above, Mr. Crear bore the burden of proving the causal link between his medical conditions and his work-related duties, and he was required to do so by a reasonable probability. Williams, 30 So.3d at 762. Having carefully reviewed the record before us in its entirety, we agree with the WCJ's conclusion that Mr. Crear failed to establish a causal connection between his medical conditions and his employment with Darling. Mr. Crear did not present any certified medical records, nor did he offer the expert testimony of any medical providers, to establish causation with regard to his claims. Rather, the only statements in the record regarding causation are those made by Mr. Crear. Further, while the medical records confirm that Mr. Crear was diagnosed and treated for carpal tunnel syndrome, there is simply no medical evidence establishing with any degree of medical certainty or reliability that Mr. Crear's condition developed from his employment activities at Darling. In short, Mr. Crear did not present evidence from any objective or independent source establishing a causal link between his medical conditions and his employment with Darling. Accordingly, we cannot say that WCJ erred in finding that Mr. Crear failed to establish a causal link between his medical conditions and his employment with Darling and in dismissing Mr. Crear's claims. See Dowell v. Ochsner Clinic of Baton Rouge, 2003-0460 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/10/04), 874 So.2d 852, 858; Lands v. Tony's Seafood, 2005-1302 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/9/06), 939 So.2d 375, 376 n.2. Therefore, the March 6, 2024 judgment of the WCJ is affirmed.

ANSWER TO APPEAL

Darling filed an answer to the appeal, requesting that this court award attorney's fees and costs for frivolous appeal as authorized by LSA-C.C.P. art. 2164 and Rule 2-12.4 of the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal. Under LSA-C.C.P. art. 2164, appeals are favored, and we will not award frivolous appeal damages unless they are clearly due. Whitney Bank v. Rayford, 2021-0407 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/5/22), 341 So.3d 741, 746. Damages for a frivolous appeal are only allowed when it is obvious that the appeal was taken solely for delay, or that counsel is not sincere in the view of the law he advocates. The slightest justification for an appeal precludes damages for frivolous appeal. Id. We cannot conclude that the foregoing criteria exist with regard to this appeal, and therefore deny Darling's request for damages for frivolous appeal. See Walker v. Smith, 2010-0721 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/29/10), 2010 WL 4273091, *12 (unpublished).

Darling also argues that the WCJ erred in permitting Mr. Crear to appeal in forma pauperis because Mr. Crear did not comply with the LSA-C.C.P. art. 5183 requirement to annex his own affidavit and the affidavit of a third person regarding his inability to pay to his ex parte motion. Under LSA-C.C.P. arts. 5181-5188, an indigent litigant who is granted the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis is relieved of paying court costs in advance or as they accrue or furnishing security therefor. Herigodt v. Town of Golden Meadow, 2020-0752 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/22/21), 321 So.3d 1004, 1016, writ denied, 2021-00880 (La. 10/12/21), 325 So.3d 1070. When an appeal is granted in forma pauperis, the proper remedy to traverse the affidavits of poverty is to make timely application to the appellate court to remand the case for such purpose pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. art. 5184. See Rollins v. Melton Truck Lines, 345 So.2d 1293 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1977).⁴ Here, no such application was made. Nevertheless, because we have ruled on the merits of Mr. Crear's appeal, traversal of Mr. Crear's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is unnecessary, because LSA-C.C.P. arts. 5186 and 5188 provide that an indigent litigant may be held liable for costs if judgment is rendered against the indigent litigant. See Herigodt, 321 So.3d at 1016.

CONCLUSION

For the above and foregoing reasons, the March 6, 2024 judgment is affirmed. The answer to the appeal filed by Darling Ingredients, Inc., is denied. All costs of this appeal are assessed equally between Joe Nathan Crear and Darling Ingredients, Inc.

AFFIRMED; ANSWER TO APPEAL DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   See also LSA-C.C.P. arts. 2129 (providing that an assignment of error is not necessary in any appeal) and 2164 (providing that an appellate court “shall render any judgment which is just, legal, and proper upon the record on appeal”); and Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 1-3 (providing that “[t]he Courts of Appeal shall review issues that were submitted to the trial court and that are contained in specifications or assignments of error, unless the interest of justice requires otherwise.”)

2.   Mr. Crear also proffered several exhibits that Darling objected to, and the trial court excluded, on the basis that the exhibits were not certified. The proffered exhibits included a document entitled “State of Louisiana Disability Determinations Authorization and Check Requisition”; entitled “Louisiana Disability Determinations”; a document entitled “Medical Examiner's Certificate (for Commercial Driver Medical Certification)”; and uncertified medical records from Pervez Mussarat, M.D., dated April 22, 2015, which contained Dr. Mussarat's impression of severe bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Although Mr. Crear argues on appeal that the trial court erred in not considering all of his exhibits, we disagree. See Chauvin v. Southern Technology & Service, Inc., 2003-2856 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/29/04), 888 So.2d 980, 981; Zavala v. St. Joe Brick Works, 2007-2217 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/31/08), 999 So.2d 13, 18, writ denied, 2008-2827 (La. 1/30/09), 999 So.2d 762. We further note that, even if the WCJ had admitted and considered Mr. Crear's proffered exhibits, none of these documents established a causal link between Mr. Crear's medical conditions and his employment with Darling.

3.   Darling also offered into evidence the testimony of Charles Collins, employed by Darling as a route supervisor; the testimony of Joshua Ryan, Darling's general manager; the testimony of Troy Lyons, a surveillance expert, and Mr. Lyon's surveillance videos of Mr. Crear; two “Personnel Action Form[s]” reflecting Mr. Crear's leave of absence in connection with his surgeries; an excerpt of Mr. Crear's deposition, which contradicted his trial testimony regarding his previous occupational training; two photographs of Mr. Crear; and one photograph of a grease trap being cleaned. However, none of this evidence was relevant to the question of whether a causal link existed between Mr. Crear's medical conditions and his employment with Darling.

4.   We note that this case pre-dates Acts 1990, No. 179, § 1, which amended and re-enacted LSA-C.C.P. art. 5184. However, the amendment did not change the law.

McCLENDON, C.J.