Thus, the employer contends, a higher, clear and convincing burden of proof should have been found applicable. The employer cites Crochet v. American Tobacco Co., 407 So.2d 1330 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1981), for the proposition that the clear and convincing burden must be met when the claimant's testimony is presented without corroborating evidence. Furthermore, the employer contends that, if the preponderance of the evidence standard is found applicable, the determination that the claimant satisfied this burden was in error.
Nor is this a case in which plaintiff's credibility has been thoroughly impeached. See Jones v. Alexander, 399 So.2d 216 (La.App. 2d Cir.), writ denied, 400 So.2d 1383 (La. 1981); Crochet v. American Tobacco Co., 407 So.2d 1330 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1981). Also, this is not a case in which the claimant's testimony is not supported by other corroborating evidence, either as to the occurrence of the accident or the disability.
Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., supra; Clakeley v. Oschner Foundation Hospital, 478 So.2d 1335 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1985). In her Written Reasons for Judgment, the hearing officer stated that, in order to meet her burden, when the claimant seeks to prove the occurrence of a work related accident solely by her own testimony, the evidence must be clear, convincing, plausible, consistent and supported by other circumstances appearing in the record, citing language preferred by the third circuit in Provost v. Transportation Insurance Co., 524 So.2d 800 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1988) and Crochet v. American Tobacco Co., 407 So.2d 1330 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1981). The "clear and convincing" language appears to this court to impose a more onerous burden on the claimant than that used by this court in Clakeley v. Oschner Foundation Hospital, supra and the Louisiana Supreme Court in Bruno.
We also have said, however, that where the plaintiff's testimony is the sole evidence, it must be clear and convincing. Colomb v. Frito Lay, Inc., 544 So.2d 710 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1989); Ceasor v. Belden Corp., 536 So.2d 1261 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1988); Provost v. Transportation Ins. Co., 524 So.2d 800 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1988); Narcisse v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 510 So.2d 1328 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1987); Thompson v. Alamo Glass Co., supra; Crocket v. American Tobacco Co., 407 So.2d 1330 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1981); Soileau v. Bituminous Cas. Corp., 348 So.2d 1313 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1977); and Alfred v. Travelers Insurance Company, 322 So.2d 872 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1975). TRIAL COURT'S REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
It is well settled that the testimony of an injured employee alone can establish the occurrence of a compensable accident by a preponderance of the evidence if his testimony is supported by corroborating circumstances. Estrada v. Domino, 441 So.2d 36 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1983); Crochet v. American Tobacco Company, 407 So.2d 1330 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1981); and Lewis v. Alloy Casting of La., Inc., 465 So.2d 847 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1985). "In a workers compensation case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.
However, where the plaintiff's testimony is the sole evidence, it must be clear and convincing. Crochet vs. American Tobacco Co., 407 So.2d 1330 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1981); Soileau vs. Bituminous Cas. Corp., 348 So.2d 1313 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1977); White vs. Freeport Chemical Company, 319 So.2d 563 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1975), writ denied, 323 So.2d 132 (La. 1975). In evaluating the evidence, the Court should accept as true and uncontradicted testimony of a witness, even though the witness is a party, at least in the absence of circumstances casting suspicion on the reliability of this testimony.
LAW In his reasons for judgment, the trial judge cited Crochet v. American Tobacco Co., 407 So.2d 1330 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1981) as the standard for the burden of proof a worker's compensation claimant must prove at trial to be granted benefits. This court stated in Crochet, at page 1333, as follows:
The testimony of a claimant alone may be sufficient to prove the occurrence of a work-related accident, if such testimony is plausible, consistent, is supported by other circumstances appearing from the record and if there is nothing to discredit his account thereof. However, where the plaintiff's testimony is the sole evidence, it must be clear and convincing. Crochet vs. American Tobacco Co., 407 So.2d 1330 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1981); Soileau vs. Bituminous Cas. Corp., 348 So.2d 1313 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1977); White vs. Freeport Chemical Company, 319 So.2d 563 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1975), writ denied, 323 So.2d 132 (La. 1975). In evaluating the evidence, the Court should accept as true and uncontradicted testimony of a witness, even though the witness is a party, at least in the absence of circumstances casting suspicion on the reliability of this testimony.
The testimony of a claimant alone may be sufficient to prove the occurrence of a work-related accident, if such testimony is plausible, consistent, is supported by other circumstances appearing from the record and if there is nothing to discredit his account thereof. However, where the plaintiff's testimony is the sole evidence, it must be clear and convincing. Crochet vs. American Tobacco Co., 407 So.2d 1330 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1981); Soileau vs. Bituminous Cas. Corp., 348 So.2d 1313 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1977); White vs. Freeport Chemical Company, 319 So.2d 563 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1975), writ denied, 323 So.2d 132 (La. 1975). In evaluating the evidence, the 1975).
However, where the plaintiff's testimony is the sole evidence, it must be clear and convincing. Crochet v. American Tobacco Co., 407 So.2d 1330 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1981), Soileau v. Bituminous Cas. Corp., 348 So.2d 1313 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1977). In the instant case, the trial court was correct in concluding that Mrs. Wall was injured as a result of a work-related accident. The record supports the plaintiff's testimony that after moving and lifting the elderly bedridden patient, her back began to hurt.