We bring to your notice a new website where you can buy priligy australia at a low cost with fast delivery to Australia.
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
THE OPELOUSAS HOUSING AUTHORITY
OFFICE OF WORKERS‟ COMPENSATION - Number 4
ADAM C. JOHNSON, WORKERS‟ COMPENSATION JUDGE
BILLY HOWARD EZELL
Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Marc T. Amy, and Billy Howard Ezell,
Gloria A. Angus
Angus Law Firm, LLC
P. O. Box 2337
Opelousas, LA 70571
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
K. Renee C. Willis
Johnson, Stiltner & Rahman
2237 S. Acadian Thruway
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
The Opelousas Housing Authority
Rhonda Powell appeals a judgment of the Office of Workers‟ Compensation
finding that she is not entitled to benefits for a mental incident resulting in injury.
Mrs. Powell was employed by the Opelousas Housing Authority (OHA) as a
property manager of Development 1 in 2010. She had been employed with the
OHA for twenty-nine-and-a-half years. There were two additional developments
Mrs. Powell explained that she received her work assignments from the
computer/fax when she would get to work in the mornings. The assignments were
usually sent by Diane Reed, the assistant director who was in charge of the three
property managers. Mrs. Powell testified that, on the morning of March 10, 2010,
she received a fax with a work assignment. The assignment required her to
transfer seven residents out of homes into another unit that had not been
“modified”. “Modification” of a unit is the preparation of the unit for occupancy
by cleaning and making repairs. Mrs. Powell stated that she only had three days to
complete this task. Testimony at trial, revealed that this type of task normally
Mrs. Powell testified that she knew she would have to violate the law by
moving the residents into unmodified units or get fired due to prior reprimands.
She was previously reprimanded twice by the new executive director Jo Ann Tyler.
In December 2009, Ms. Tyler wrote Mrs. Powell up because she refused to follow
an order given by Ms. Tyler. In February 2010, Mrs. Powell was reprimanded for
negative comments expressed to other employees about employees and Board
Mrs. Powell stated she got frightened upon receiving the faxed order and
asked Rose Collins, a secretarial helper in the office, to get help. Michael Reed
and Willie Pickney were maintenance men that worked for the OHA. Mrs. Powell
told them she was sick. Mr. Reed drove Mrs. Powell in her car to her house, and
Mr. Pickney followed them in another vehicle. They dropped her off and went
When Mrs. Powell‟s husband got home, he noticed that Mrs. Powell did not
look well and had been crying. She allegedly told him about getting the fax. Mrs.
Powell complained she had a headache, so Mr. Powell called their family doctor,
Dr. Theodore Deblanc, and scheduled an appointment for his wife.
Mrs. Powell saw Dr. Deblanc on March 12, 2010. At that time, Dr. Deblanc
ordered Mrs. Powell not to return to work for three weeks and prescribed
medications. She returned to see Dr. Deblanc on March 30, 2010, reporting three
more episodes of anxiety. She also requested that Dr. Deblanc fill out a Family
Through her husband‟s employee assistance program, Mrs. Powell was
referred to a licensed clinical social worker, Patricia Lafleur. Ms. Lafleur saw Mrs.
Powell on April 15, 2010. When Ms. Lafleur first saw Mrs. Powell, she was
taking Paxil and Xanax. She was depressed, anxious, irritable, hallucinating, and
had trouble sleeping. She was also experiencing paranoia symptoms. Ms. Lafleur
testified that Mrs. Powell felt pressured at work and was concerned she was being
pushed to do things that were not legal. Ms. Lafleur opined that Mrs. Powell was
in need of more intensive counseling, and by her third visit Mrs. Powell agreed to
Oceans provided outpatient care for a year under the care of Dr. Samir
Salama, a psychiatrist. Dr. Salama testified that Mrs. Powell had a history of
anxiety and depression, which had most likely increased due to a problem at work.
When Mrs. Powell was discharged from Oceans, she was referred back to Ms.
Lafleur for outpatient counseling. Ms. Lafleur saw Mrs. Powell four more times
and observed that Mrs. Powell had learned some coping skills and was a
In November 2010, Mrs. Powell was notified by Ms. Tyler that her sick
leave was exhausted. She informed Mrs. Powell that she would be terminated
unless she could return to work. Mrs. Powell responded indicating that she
objected to the termination and would appeal the “adverse discriminatory,
retaliatory, harassing employment practices.”
On February 9, 2011, Mrs. Powell filed a disputed claim for compensation
claiming that she had a nervous breakdown on March 10, 2010. Mrs. Powell
claimed that Ms. Tyler refused to address the extraordinary amount of work
assigned to her and that she denied her request to timely complete the tasks. She
also claimed that Ms. Tyler made many threats to terminate her.
On June 8, 2011, Mrs. Powell was evaluated by Dr. Douglas de Mahy to
assess her mental status regarding the presence of a potentially disabling
mental/psychiatric condition in conjunction with her application for social security
disability. Mrs. Powell is currently receiving social security disability benefits,
and testified that she did not know she had a workers‟ compensation claim until
she saw Dr. de Mahy. However, she filed her claim on February 9, 2011,
approximately four months before she was evaluated by Dr. de Mahy.
A trial on the matter was held on October 10 and 11, 2012. On November
21, 2012, the workers‟ compensation judge (WCJ) issued an oral ruling finding
that Mrs. Powell failed to meet her burden of proof by clear and convincing
evidence as required by La.R.S. 23:1021(8)(b). The WCJ then dismissed her claim
against the OHA and its insurer, the Louisiana Workers‟ Compensation
Corporation. Judgment was signed on January 7, 2013. Mrs. Powell then filed the
Mrs. Powell argues that the decision of the WCJ should be reversed because
her testimony was uncontradicted and corroborated by witness and physician
testimony in addition to the evidence introduced at trial. She argues that the facts
corroborate her testimony of an injury on the job on March 10, 2010.
Workers‟ compensation benefits are available for a mental injury caused by
mental stress when the “mental injury was the result of a sudden, unexpected, and
extraordinary stress related to the employment and is demonstrated by clear and
convincing evidence.” La.R.S. 23:1021(8)(b).
In order to recover workers‟ compensation benefits for a mental injury it
must be triggered by an accident; “an unexpected and unforeseen event that occurs
suddenly or violently.” Fontenot v. Interstate Distrib. Co.
, 09-1526, p. 5 (La.App.
3 Cir. 5/12/10), 37 So.3d 1095, 1098 (quoting Adams v. Temple Inland, LA
p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/5/03), 858 So.2d 855, 859, writ denied
, 03-3327 (La.
2/13/04), 867 So.2d 695). “It is insufficient for the claimant to show that his
mental injury is „related to general conditions of employment, or to incidents
occurring over an extended period of time.‟” Id
The Supreme Court has held that “„the legislature intended to restrict
recovery under subsection (b) to those mental injuries that result from stresses
which, by their nature, are sudden, unexpected, and extraordinary in the usual
course of employment in that working environment.‟” Manuel v. Northrop-
, 04-480, pp. 2-3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/29/04), 883 So.2d 502, 504 (quoting
Partin v. Merchants & Farmers Bank
, 01-1560, p. 12 (La. 3/11/02), 810 So.2d
In finding that Mrs. Powell failed to meet her burden of proving by clear and
convincing evidence that she suffered a mental injury caused by mental stress, the
WCJ stated: “In assessing Ms. Powell‟s testimony, based upon her gestures, tone
of voice, responses and reactions to questions, and overall demeanor, the Court
does not find Ms. Powell‟s testimony credible regarding the March 10, 2010 fax.”
Determinations by the workers‟ compensation judge as to whether the
claimant‟s testimony is credible and whether the claimant has discharged his
burden of proof are factual determinations and will not be disturbed upon review in
the absence of manifest error or unless clearly wrong. Lestage v. Nabors Drilling
, 10-728 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/8/10), 54 So.3d 133, writ denied
, 11-88 (La.
Only Mrs. Powell and Ms. Collins worked in the building together. Ms.
Collins testified that Mrs. Powell told her she was sick and going home. Mr. Reed,
who drove Mrs. Powell home, testified that Mrs. Powell did not tell him that
anything had happened at work. She only told him that she was sick. Neither Ms.
Collins nor Mr. Reed knew anything about a fax.
Ms. Tyler confirmed that Mr. Reed reported that he drove Mrs. Powell home
because she was sick. Later she received notification that Mrs. Powell was under
the care of a doctor and would be out for some time. She never received any
notification that her illness was work-related. It was not until she received the
workers‟ compensation notice that Ms. Tyler became aware that Mrs. Powell was
claiming a work-related illness. Ms. Tyler testified that she did not send Mrs.
Powell a fax on March 10, 2010. She stated that she was not aware of any fax sent
to Mrs. Powell notifying her that she had a certain number of days to perform a
The disputed claim for compensation makes no mention of a fax. It only
asserts that claimant had a nervous breakdown because Ms. Tyler refused to
address the extraordinary amount of work assigned to Mrs. Powell and refused her
request for an assistant to help timely complete the tasks. The claim form also
stated that Ms. Tyler made many threats to terminate Mrs. Powell.
Ms. Tyler testified that it takes six to fourteen days to modify a unit for
occupancy. She agreed that you could not move a tenant into a unit that is not
ready for occupancy as it is against HUD‟s rules and regulations. She further
acknowledged that it is almost impossible to move a tenant in three days unless the
unit is in good shape when the tenant moves out.
Ms. Tyler testified that she was not aware of any extra work or deadlines
placed on Mrs. Powell around March 10, 2010. She had the same responsibilities
and was treated the same as the property managers of Development 2 and
The Powells testified that Mrs. Powell had only had an anxiety attack one
other time, when they were building a house in 2001. Mr. Powell testified that his
wife was prescribed Paxil at that time and may have taken it for two to three years.
However, Dr. Deblanc‟s medical records indicate that Mrs. Powell continued to
receive treatment for depression and anxiety throughout the years. In June of 2005,
Mrs. Powell was continuing to be prescribed Paxil. In October of 2005, she
reported that she was “under a great deal of work stress.” She was prescribed Paxil
in May 2006. Valium was prescribed for her in May 2006. In December 2006,
Mrs. Powell reported depression. Again, Paxil continued to be prescribed in
February 2007. Mrs. Powell requested a refill of Paxil in October 2007. In 2009,
Mrs. Powell was prescribed Paroxetine. She reported being stressed a lot.
Dr. Deblanc‟s progress notes indicate that when he first examined Mrs.
Powell in March 2010 that she was having panic attacks more often than normal,
had to put her head between her legs to calm down, and was stressed out. Later,
she reported three more anxiety attacks. No mention is made of a fax.
Ms. Lafleur reported that Mrs. Powell was reprimanded in February which
caused her anxiety issues. Ms. Lafleur testified that it was her understanding Mrs.
Powell broke down at work on March 10, 2010, and had to be taken home. Ms.
Lafleur testified that Mrs. Powell felt pressured and that the agency was biased and
unfair. Ms. Lafleur did not indicate that Mrs. Powell had received a fax.
Dr. Samir testified that Mrs. Powell had a history of depression which was
intensified by stressors with her employer that happened prior to her admission at
Dr. de Mahy, the social security doctor, noted that Mrs. Powell reported she
had a breakdown at work and “complained that the heavy workload and the
demanding attitude of her supervisor resulted in a subsequent hospitalization [in]
an intensive outpatient therapy.” She related that her breakdown occurred at work
in March 2010. She related that she was “concerned about her ability to deal with
normal work demands particularly working under a demanding and aggressive
supervisor.” She also reported that “she harbors intense resentment for her former
supervisor and the way she was treated.” Mrs. Powell was “concerned that she
will be overly sensitive and misinterpret normal supervisory expectations as
Mr. Powell testified that when he got home, Mrs. Powell told him that she
had received a fax from the main office about transferring tenants into units that
were not available. Mrs. Powell agreed that she showed the fax to her husband but
did not have a copy of it for trial. She testified that she did not know if she
destroyed it or if it was in a binder at her home.
Based on the above testimony and evidence, we find that the WCJ‟s decision
is reasonably supported by the record. The only people who stated anything about
Mrs. Powell getting a fax were her and her husband. The fax itself was never
introduced into evidence. Furthermore, the record establishes that Mrs. Powell had
a history of depression and anxiety attacks years before March 10, 2010. It is
obvious that Mrs. Powell was adjusting to working with a new director. The
record as a whole indicates that Mrs. Powell was continuing to feel pressured at
work which resulted in a breakdown on March 10, 2010. We find no manifest
error in the WCJ‟s decision that there was no sudden and unforeseen event on
For the above reasons, the judgment of the Office of Workers‟
Compensation is affirmed. All costs are assessed to Rhonda Powell.
Disciplinary Committee Inquiries The Disciplinary Committee of the GBGB were in attendance at a meeting held on 21 February 2012:- Mr K Salmon (in the chair) Dr E Houghton Mr R Woodworth Dr AJ Higgins* (*denotes where Dr Higgins was present in an advisory capacity as Independent Doping & Medication Adviser) 1. *Yarmouth Stadium – LOADED DICE – Professional Trainer Mrs J
© Angelina I. Nyagu, Konstantin N. Loganovsky, 1997, 2001 NEUROPSYCHIATRIC EFFECTS OF IONISING RADIATION Chapter 8. TRE ATME N T AN D PROPHYLAXIS OF ION ISIN G RADIATION IMPACT N E URO-PSYCHIATRIC CON SE QUE N CE S Prophylaxis, management and rehabilitation issues in patients suffering psychoneurological disorders risen under radiation impact or in remote period are extremely actua