LEBLANC v. WALMART STORES INC (2025)

Granted. The court of appeal did not err in finding the ruling of the Office of Workers’ Compensation which excluded claimant's testimony was a consequential error which interdicted the fact-finding process. However, because claimant's testimony will require a determination of her credibility, the court of appeal erred in reviewing the record on a de novo basis rather than remanding for a new trial. See Landry v. Bellanger, 2002-1443 (La. 5/20/03), 851 So. 2d 943, 954 (“[w]here a view of the witnesses is essential to a fair resolution of conflicting evidence, the case should be remanded for a new trial.”).

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeal is vacated and set aside. The case is remanded to the Office of Workers’ Compensation for a new trial.

The majority finds consequential error which interdicted the fact-finding process and, thus, remands the case for a new trial so the fact finder can “view the witnesses.” This is a waste of judicial resources. The case was tried before a worker's compensation judge. That judge will now re-try the case. The same judge will view the same witnesses as in the first trial. The excluded evidence was proffered. While I find no consequential error in the trial judge excluding that evidence, the evidence was proffered. Either a writ denial or our court performing de novo review of the complete record would be the reasonable course. No new trial is warranted here.

I find that the exclusion of claimant's testimony about her pre-accident health is not consequential error. “Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected.” La. Code Evid. art. 103A(1). The workers’ compensation judge correctly observed claimant's prior condition was “covered in the first trial.” The proffered testimony was also cumulative of other evidence in the record of the second trial, including medical records, establishing claimant's pre-accident condition. The court of appeal's judgment should be vacated and the case remanded to that court for review of the factual findings of the workers’ compensation judge under a manifest error standard of review.

PER CURIAM

Weimer, C.J., dissents and would grant and docket. Crain, J., dissents and assigns reasons.