CASAS v. GREAT AMERICAN ALLIANCE INS CO 28 (2026)

Plaintiff filed a workers’ compensation death claim against Defendants after her son died following an alleged injury sustained while in the course and scope of his employment. After a two-day trial, the workers’ compensation judge (“WCJ”) rendered judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Freddy Casas was a dairy manager at Rouse's Supermarket Store 69 (“the Store”) in Baton Rouge.¹ On February 18, 2018, Mr. Casas worked at the Store from 6:07 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. That evening, Mr. Casas presented to Our Lady of the Lake Hospital (“OLOL”) complaining of chest tightness, abdominal cramping, and leg and back pain. Mr. Casas passed away in the early morning hours of February 19, 2018. An autopsy performed at the hospital confirmed the cause of death was an aortic dissection.²

On February 13, 2019, Mr. Casas's mother (“Plaintiff”) filed a disputed claim for compensation with the Office of Workers’ Compensation, District 5, in which she named Rouse's Enterprises, LLC (“Rouse's”) as Mr. Casas's employer and Great American Alliance Insurance Company (“GAAI”) as its insurer. Plaintiff alleged that on February 18, 2018, Mr. Casas was working in the frozen department at the Store when several boxes of frozen product fell and struck Mr. Casas in the chest. Plaintiff asserted that Mr. Casas succumbed to his injuries as a result of this incident at his place of work, and she requested parental death benefits under La. R.S. 23:1231(B) in the amount of $75,000.00 and burial expenses under La. R.S. 23:1210 in the amount of $7,500.00. Rouse's and GAAI (collectively “Defendants”) answered the disputed claim for compensation on June 19, 2019, in which they denied all allegations for lack of sufficient information.

After numerous continuances, a two-day trial began on August 30, 2023. Plaintiff testified that Mr. Casas came home from work on February 18, 2018, and told her, “[M]other, I had an impact in my chest. ․ I almost faint[ed.]” Plaintiff stated she asked Mr. Casas what happened, and Mr. Casas replied, “A pallet of frozen products [fell] on top of my chest[,] and I almost pass[ed] out.”³ Plaintiff said she urged Mr. Casas to go to the hospital, but he said, “I[’m] going to be okay.” According to Plaintiff, Mr. Casas rested at home until 6:00 p.m., brought Plaintiff to bible study, and then went to the casino, where he had two alcoholic beverages. Plaintiff testified that Mr. Casas was complaining of back and kidney pain when he brought her to bible study. Plaintiff stated she called Mr. Casas sometime around 9:30 p.m., at which time he informed her that he had driven himself to the emergency room at OLOL because he was having chest pains. Mr. Casas allegedly told his mother, “I think I'm having a heart attack” and said he was having terrible pains and could not breathe.

Plaintiff testified that she got a ride to the hospital and arrived around 10:30 p.m. Plaintiff stated that when she arrived, Mr. Casas was in the hall on a stretcher alone and was throwing up. Plaintiff testified that Mr. Casas was moved to a patient room sometime after midnight, and at that time, she spoke with a doctor. Plaintiff stated she told Mr. Casas's doctor that Mr. Casas had an “impact in [the] heart”; she also stated that Mr. Casas told her that he told the doctor about his alleged workplace accident.

When asked if Mr. Casas reported the alleged workplace incident to anyone at the Store before he left for the day, Plaintiff stated Mr. Casas told her that he tried to look for one of the managers but could not find one. Plaintiff testified that she encouraged Mr. Casas to report the accident after hours but she was unaware if he did. In addition. Plaintiff testified that she reported Mr. Casas's accident and death to OSHA in January of 2019. OSHA initiated an investigation based on Plaintiff's complaint and ultimately determined that Mr. Casas's injuries and death were not caused by a workplace accident.

Plaintiff also offered the deposition testimony of Fabio Arroyave, a friend of hers who drove her to OLOL on the night of February 18, 2018. Mr. Arroyave testified that Plaintiff told him that Mr. Casas told her something heavy hit him in the chest at work.

A manager at the Store at the time of the incident, Paul Bourgeois, also testified at trial. Mr. Bourgeois stated that Rouse's had a web portal used for reporting workplace accidents and only one of the four store managers could file an accident report into the web portal. Mr. Bourgeois also explicitly stated that Mr. Casas could not file his own accident report into the web portal. The Manager's Floor Inspection Report from February 18, 2018, reflects that Carl Webre, assistant store manager, was on the clock during the same time Mr. Casas was working. Mr. Bourgeois testified that Mr. Webre would have been able to file an accident report into the web portal on Mr. Casas's behalf. Mr. Webre testified that Mr. Casas did not report an accident to him on the date of the alleged accident nor did he learn of a workplace accident on that date from anyone else. Ryan Pauli, another manager at the Store, clocked in at 12:57 p.m. on February 18, 2018, approximately one hour before Mr. Casas left for the day. The trial testimony established Mr. Pauli could have also filled out an accident report on the web portal. Mr. Bourgeois also testified that he did not learn that Mr. Casas allegedly had a workplace accident on the date of his death until a month or two later. Mr. Bourgeois stated that no incident was reported and that he has never been told by anyone else at the Store that Mr. Casas had an accident on the job. On redirect examination, Mr. Bourgeois admitted that the type of accident Mr. Casas reportedly sustained was “possible.” Two additional colleagues of Mr. Casas also testified at trial. Neither was aware of any workplace accident that occurred at the Store on February 18, 2018.

Both parties introduced Mr. Casas's OLOL medical records from February 18, and 19, 2018, into the record. The medical records did not contain any entries that indicate Mr. Casas had an accident while in the course and scope of his employment earlier that day, and there is no mention of any accident and/or trauma of any kind. The only mention of any incident from February 18, 2018, is a provider note that states Mr. Casas told OLOL personnel that he had two vodka drinks at L'Auberge Casino and that he and Plaintiff thought someone may have poisoned him.⁴ Deanta Norman, a nurse practitioner who tended to Mr. Casas that night, testified at trial. Ms. Norman stated Mr. Casas was a 45-year-old male who presented for chest pain and reported that he was about to pass out and could not feel his limbs. Ms. Norman stated Mr. Casas reported he thought he was having a stroke or a heart attack. Mr. Casas also reported that he had two “vodkas” while out drinking with friends. Ms. Norman confirmed that she would generally include any information the patient gave regarding an injury on the job or trauma to his chest. Regarding Mr. Casas specifically, Ms. Norman stated, “If it is not documented in my notes, he did not tell me.”

Likewise, Dr. Shannon Allwood, one of Mr. Casas's treating physicians at OLOL, testified that neither Mr. Casas nor Plaintiff told her that Mr. Casas suffered any trauma to his chest or any other part of his body or that Mr. Casas had an accident on the job.⁵ Dr. Allwood further testified that she did not find any bruising or abrasions on Mr. Casas's chest or other part of his body and that there was no evidence that Mr. Casas's aortic dissection was caused by any type of trauma. Dr. Allwood also confirmed that both Mr. Casas and Plaintiff told her they believed Mr. Casas may have been poisoned. Dr. Allwood further testified that at least 20 hospital staff members had contact with Mr. Casas yet there were no notes in the OLOL records that any of them were told by Mr. Casas that he had been injured on the job. Dr. Allwood stated that if such a report was made, she would expect it to be reflected in the medical records.

At the close of evidence, the WCJ ordered the parties to submit post-trial briefs. The WCJ signed a judgment on November 28, 2023, which stated that Plaintiff “failed to prove her son, [Mr.] Casas, had an accident while within the course and scope of his employment with [Rouse's] and that [Plaintiff's] claim for workers’ compensation death benefits ․ is denied.” It is from this judgment Plaintiff now appeals.⁶

LAW AND ANALYSIS

To recover workers’ compensation benefits, a claimant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an accident occurred on the job site and that an injury was sustained. Hirstius v. Tropicare Service, LLC, 2011-1080 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/21/11), 80 So.3d 1215, 1216. As in other civil cases, in reviewing the WCJ's factual determinations, including whether the claimant has discharged his burden of proof, this court is bound by the manifest error standard of review. Under that standard of review, an appellate court may only reverse a WCJ's factual determinations if it finds from the record that a reasonable factual basis for the finding does not exist and that examination of the entire record reveals that the finding is clearly wrong. Hirstius, 80 So.3d at 1216. Thus, the issue to be resolved by a reviewing court is not whether the trier of fact was right or wrong, but whether the factfinder's conclusion was a reasonable one. Mincey v. Rouse's Enterprises, LLC, 2023-0251 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/3/23), 378 So.3d 126, 128. If the factfinder's findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse, even if convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently. Mincey, 378 So.3d at 128.

Although procedural rules are construed liberally in favor of workers’ compensation claimants, the burden of proof—a preponderance of the evidence—is not relaxed. Alvis v. Peninsula Gaming Partners, LLC, 2020-0161 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/12/20), 316 So.3d 54, 58. Accordingly, the testimony as a whole must show that more probably than not an employment accident occurred and that it had a causal relation to the injury. If the testimony leaves the probabilities equally balanced, the plaintiff has failed to carry the burden of persuasion. Likewise, the plaintiff's case must fail if the evidence shows only a possibility of a causative accident or leaves it to speculation or conjecture. Alvis, 316 So.3d at 58.

Former and current employees of the Store testified at trial, and all stated they were not made aware that Mr. Casas suffered a workplace accident on February 18, 2018, until sometime after his death. Mr. Casas did not make a report of a workplace accident to any of his managers at the Store although Rouse's policy requires an employee to immediately report an accident. Furthermore, Mr. Casas's medical providers at OLOL denied being informed of any workplace accident or trauma to his chest. The medical records likewise contain no indication that Mr. Casas sustained injuries from a workplace accident on the day he presented to OLOL. To the contrary, the medical records state that both Mr. Casas and Plaintiff reported that they were concerned someone had poisoned Mr. Casas's drink earlier in the evening.

Plaintiff's testimony was only evidence presented to support a finding that Mr. Casas suffered a workplace accident on February 18, 2018.⁷ Plaintiff testified that Mr. Casas told her about the incident and that both she and Mr. Casas reported the incident to OLOL staff. Plaintiff also offered the testimony of Mr. Arroyave, who stated that Plaintiff informed him that Mr. Casas told Plaintiff he was injured at work. However, Mr. Arroyave admitted that he had no independent knowledge of Mr. Casas's alleged workplace incident or the events of the evening leading up to Mr. Casas's death (with the exception of a few minutes he spent in the emergency room at OLOL).

After considering all of the evidence offered by the parties, the WCJ concluded Plaintiff “failed to prove her son, [Mr.] Casas, had an accident while within the course and scope of his employment with [Rouse's.]” Where, as here, the evidence supports two permissible views, a factfinder's choice of one of the views cannot be said to be clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous, and reasonable evaluations of credibility and inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review. See McGlothlin v. Christus St. Patrick Hosp., 2010-2775 (La. 7/1/11), 65 So.3d 1218, 1237; Bella v. Knieper, 2024-0277 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/20/24), 405 So.3d 1039, 1045, writ denied, 2024-01563 (La. 4/8/25), 405 So.3d 575. After thorough review of the evidence, we find a reasonable factual basis exists to support the WCJ's conclusion that Plaintiff did not carry her burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Casas had an accident while working at the Store. See Hirstius, 80 So.3d at 1216. Accordingly, we find no manifest error in the WCJ's ruling. See McGlothlin, 65 So.3d at 1237.

DECREE

For the above and foregoing reasons, the WCJ's November 28, 2023 judgment in favor of Defendants, Rouse's Enterprises, LLC and Great American Alliance Insurance Company, and against Plaintiff, Miryam Casas, is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Plaintiff, Miryam Casas.

AFFIRMED.

I respectfully concur. I disagree with the majority's determination that the evidence supports two permissible views. I do not view the issue before us as a choice between two competing views of the evidence. Plaintiff avers that her son's aortic dissection was caused by boxes falling on him at work. I find that Plaintiff simply failed to meet her burden of proving her theory, i.e., that the injuries were caused in a work-related accident, by a preponderance of the evidence. See Butler v. L & N Food Stores, 2011-0577 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/10/12), 91 So. 3d 342.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The evidence revealed the alleged incident occurred at Store 69 rather than Store 28, which appears in the caption.

2.   Dr. Shannon Allwood, the attending emergency physician at OLOL on the night of Mr. Casas's passing, explained that an aortic dissection is a disruption between the lumens of the large vessel that comes from the heart to the rest of the body; in other words, it is a break in the wall of the vessel that causes blood to track back into the heart.

3.   During cross examination, defense counsel attempted to impeach Plaintiff by referring to and offering into evidence her deposition testimony where she stated that Mr. Casas did not tell her exactly what happened.

4.   Plaintiff specifically denied that she or Mr. Casas told hospital staff that they were worried Mr. Casas had been poisoned. Rather, Plaintiff testified that hospital staff presented poisoning as a possible cause of Mr. Casas's medical issues.

5.   Dr. Allwood did not appear at trial; rather, Defendants’ counsel introduced her deposition testimony as evidence at trial.

6.   Notice of the signing of judgment was mailed on November 30, 2023. Plaintiff filed a (undated) notice of appeal, which the WCJ signed on December 14, 2023.

7.   Plaintiff also introduced the deposition testimony of Wardell Junius, a friend of Mr. Casas. Mr. Junius testified that he spoke with Mr. Casas on the phone on the afternoon of February 18, 2018, for approximately 40 minutes to an hour and that Mr. Casas stated that he was hurt at work by a pallet that hit him near or on his chest. According to Mr. Junius, Mr. Casas stated that he had a sharp pain in his chest and “it was faint but it wasn't consistent.” However, Mr. Casas's phone records were introduced into evidence as well. Mr. Junius provided three different phone numbers belonging to him, yet none of these three phone numbers appeared on Mr. Casas's phone records on February 18, 2018. Further, the longest phone call on Mr. Casas's phone records for that day lasted 18 minutes and that call did not originate from and was not made to any of the phone numbers provided by Mr. Junius.

EDWARDS, J.

Miller, J. concurs with reasons