TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Karmazin v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.

Jay Jesse KARMAZIN v. KAISER ALUMINUM AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION

Karmazin v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 374 So. 2d 202 (La. Ct. App. 1979)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
August 1, 1979
Docket
No. 10349
Judges
Beer, Gulotta, Stoulig
Citations
374 So. 2d 2021979 La. App. LEXIS 3436

Opinion of the Court — Beer

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

BEER, Judge.

Appellant sustained injury in the course and scope of his employment with Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation and *203 contends that said injury caused a permanent disfiguring scar in the middle of his forehead, producing photographs and his own physical presence in support thereof.

LSA-R.S. 23:1221(4)(p) provides compensation for an injury which is materially disfiguring and permanent in character, i. e., a facial scar which significantly mars the habitual facial expression and is such as to attract attention; but slight or insignificant scarring which is not readily noticeable is not compensable. See Templet v. Travelers Insurance Company, 278 So.2d 805 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1973); Dykes v. North River Insurance Company, 270 So.2d 329 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1972); Addison v. Neeb Kearney & Company, 252 So.2d 471 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1971); Ousley v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, 121 So.2d 378 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1960).

Notwithstanding various comments of the trial judge during the course of the proceedings which may have been encouraging to appellant, judgment was rendered dismissing his claim.

The trial court had the benefit of first hand observation — as did we at the time this matter was ably presented by appellant in proper person — and we find support for the trial judge’s apparent conclusion that, although the scar is visible, it is not so noticeable as to constitute a material disfigurement which mars or detracts from the natural expression of the face. The judgment is affirmed. Each party shall bear its own costs of this appeal.

AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1983: 11989: 11991: 119832026peak 1983 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Davis v. United Parcel Service, Inc.427 So. 2d 921 (La. Ct. App. 1983)
  2. Brooks v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc.553 So. 2d 960 (La. Ct. App. 1989)
  3. Jordan v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc.590 So. 2d 114 (La. Ct. App. 1991)

Most recent

  1. Jordan v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc.590 So. 2d 114 (La. Ct. App. 1991)
  2. Brooks v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc.553 So. 2d 960 (La. Ct. App. 1989)
  3. Davis v. United Parcel Service, Inc.427 So. 2d 921 (La. Ct. App. 1983)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Dykes v. North River Ins. Co., 270 So. 2d 329 (La. Ct. App. 1973) 12
Addison v. Neeb Kearney & Co., 252 So. 2d 471 (La. Ct. App. 1971) 10
Ousley v. Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. of Wis., 121 So. 2d 378 (La. Ct. App. 1960) 10
Templet v. Travelers Ins. Co., 278 So. 2d 805 (La. Ct. App. 1973) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list