From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Gaylord Container Corp.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
Jun 29, 2001
791 So. 2d 629 (La. 2001)

Opinion

No. 2001-C-0924

June 29, 2001.

IN RE: Gaylord Container Corporation; Continenal Casualty Company; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Worker'S Compensation District 6, No. 98-05101; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 99 CA 2340


Granted. See per curiam.

RLL

PFC

CDK

JPV

CDT

JTK

PCC


This application is granted in part.

The court of appeal reversed the reinstatement of temporary total benefits and awarded plaintiff supplemental earnings benefits based on the conclusion that plaintiff could only earn minimum wages, thereby remanding the matter to the hearing officer to determine plaintiff's average weekly wage before her injury.

Because the issue before the hearing officer was whether temporary total disability benefits were improperly terminated, supplemental earnings benefits were never considered by that court. Therefore, on remand the parties should be allowed to offer whatever evidence they deem appropriate to support or rebut the award of supplemental earnings benefits. See La.Rev.Stat. 23:1221(3)(c)(i). For that reason, we grant this application, vacate the court of appeal's award of supplemental earnings benefits, and remand to the trial court for a determination of the proper amount due.

In all other respects, the application is denied.


Summaries of

Smith v. Gaylord Container Corp.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
Jun 29, 2001
791 So. 2d 629 (La. 2001)
Case details for

Smith v. Gaylord Container Corp.

Case Details

Full title:SYLVIA J. SMITH v. GAYLORD CONTAINER CORPORATION AND CONTINENAL CASUALTY…

Court:Supreme Court of Louisiana

Date published: Jun 29, 2001

Citations

791 So. 2d 629 (La. 2001)

Citing Cases

Nolan v. Rawls Farming Co.

Inasmuch as the issue before the WCJ was whether Nolan was entitled to TTD benefits, SEB were never…

Blair v. Wal-Mart

Therefore, we find it necessary to remand for the hearing officer to address that issue. As in S mith v.…