Whitfield v. Firemen's Fund Insurance Company

2 Citing cases

  1. Joseph v. Southern Pulpwood Insurance Company

    140 So. 2d 725 (La. Ct. App. 1962)   Cited 1 times

    In such cases the fact that the physical results of the accident have disappeared and that a normal individual would have been able to return to work is not a sufficient reason for denying compensation to the victim who is emotionally predisposed to injury! "In the case of Whitfield v. Firemen's Fund Insurance Company, 125 So.2d 165, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal allowed recovery for a traumatic neurosis which developed following a successful hernia operation and in that connection said: " 'The existence of disability may be established by subjective evidence if it is related to an objective condition, and a compensation claimant should not be stigmatized as a malingerer unless the evidence is positive and convincing. Miller v. U.S. Fidelity Guaranty Co., La. App. 99 So.2d 511.'

  2. Deboest v. Travelers Insurance Company

    138 So. 2d 646 (La. Ct. App. 1962)   Cited 9 times

    , 111 So.2d 387; Etienne v. Algernon Blair, Inc., La. App.Orl., 100 So.2d 533; Hicks v. Royal Indemnity Co., La. App.Orl., 80 So.2d 553 (amended as to costs, 229 La. 536, 86 So.2d 183); Phelps v. Royal Indemnity Co., La. App.Orl., 77 So.2d 225; Mouton v. Gulf States Utilities Co., La. App. 1 Cir., 69 So.2d 147. In opposition to this contention, the plaintiff cites and relies upon the following decisions: Doucet v. Ashy Construction Co., La. App. 3 Cir., 134 So.2d 665; Williams v. Bituminous Cas. Corp., La. App. 2 Cir., 131 So.2d 844; Guidry v. Michigan Mutual Liab. Co., La. App. 3 Cir., 130 So.2d 513; Whitfield v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., La. App. 4 Cir., 125 So.2d 165; Webber v. Wofford-Brindley Lbr. Co., La. App. 1 Cir., 113 So.2d 23; Mouton v. Marquette Cas. Co., La. App. 1 Cir., 109 So.2d 227; Parker v. General Earthwork Service and Marquette Cas. Co., La. App.,Orl., 103 So.2d 573; Miller v. United States Fidelity Guaranty Co., La. App. 2 Cir., 99 So.2d 511; Singleton v. W. L. Richardson Sons, La. App.Orl., 95 So.2d 36; Malbreaux. v. Barber Bros. Co., La. App. 1 Cir., 91 So.2d 62; Tate v. Gullett Gin Co., La. App. 1 Cir., 86 So.2d 698; Mamon v. Farnsworth Chambers Construction Co., La. App. 1 Cir., 86 So.2d 764; Dupre v. Wyble, La. App. 1 Cir., 85 So.2d 119; Ladner v. Higgins, La. App. Orl., 71 So.2d 242. Basically, the defendant-appellant relied upon the same defense in the trial court.