Stevie Michael Holmes v. Replacement Parts Inc. and Zurich American Insurance Company

No. 56,777-WCA (La. Ct. App. May 20, 2026) · Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit · May 20, 2026 · No. 56,777-WCA

Summary

The Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed a workers’ compensation judgment requiring Replacement Parts Inc. and Zurich American Insurance Company to pay reasonable and necessary medical treatment for Stevie Michael Holmes’s neck and left shoulder injuries. The court held that the evidence supported a finding that the workplace accident aggravated or contributed to Holmes’s pre-existing left shoulder condition and resulting need for replacement surgery. The court applied manifest-error review and considered both lay and medical evidence in evaluating causation and compensability.

Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
Stephens, J.; Cox, J.; Ellender, J.
Jurisdiction
Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit
Decision date
May 20, 2026
Docket number
56,777-WCA
Procedural posture
Defendants appealed devolutively from a workers' compensation judgment awarding reasonable and necessary medical treatment for the claimant's compensable neck and left shoulder injuries.
Standard of review
Factual findings of a workers' compensation judge are reviewed under the manifest-error standard. The reviewing court must affirm if a reasonable factual basis exists and the record does not establish that the findings are clearly wrong. Credibility determinations and the claimant's satisfaction of the burden of proof are factual questions. The WCJ's judgment is reviewed rather than its oral or written reasons.
Precedential value
Published opinion
Parties
Replacement Parts Inc., Zurich American Insurance Company v. Dale Annette Lenard Holmes, Stevie Michael Holmes, Jr., Dustin Dean Holmes
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

workers compensationstandard of reviewevidenceappellate procedureinsurance

Practice areas

workers compensationemployment lawinsuranceappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the WCJ manifestly erred in finding that the work-related accident aggravated Holmes's pre-existing left-shoulder condition and that the resulting medical treatment was compensable.
  2. Whether the WCJ could consider lay testimony, together with medical evidence, in determining disability and causation.
  3. Whether the appellate court should review the WCJ's judgment rather than the reasons stated for that judgment.

Holdings

  1. A claimant with a pre-existing condition may recover workers' compensation benefits by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a work accident aggravated, accelerated, or combined with the condition to produce compensable disability. The WCJ's finding that the accident aggravated Holmes's left-shoulder condition was supported by a reasonable factual basis and was not manifestly erroneous.
  2. Causation and disability are not exclusively medical conclusions; the WCJ may determine them from the totality of credible lay and medical evidence. The WCJ was therefore permitted to consider testimony from Holmes, his wife, and his supervisor along with medical evidence.
  3. An appellate court reviews the judgment, not the lower court's oral or written reasons for judgment.

Key quotations

the symptomology appears to have dramatically increased in [Holmes’s] left shoulder after the head-on collision and the blow to the shoulder, evidenced by marked tendinitis in the biceps tendon in the shoulder joint itself. Thus, in conclusion it appears [Holmes] had a pre-existing condition aggravated by the motor vehicle accident which occurred while he was working. (16)

Factual background

Holmes was employed as a delivery driver by Replacement Parts when he was involved in a work-related automobile accident on April 28, 2023. Although he had pre-existing arthritic changes in his shoulders and had previously been told he might eventually need shoulder replacements, the evidence showed that he could perform his job before the accident and experienced materially worsened left-shoulder symptoms and work limitations afterward. Medical evidence, including an opinion from Dr. Brown, indicated that the accident aggravated the pre-existing shoulder condition and contributed to the need for replacement surgery.

Procedural history

Holmes filed a disputed claim seeking medical treatment, penalties, attorney fees, and costs after defendants denied recommended treatment for his left shoulder following a work-related automobile accident. The workers' compensation judge initially approved neck treatment but denied shoulder treatment; after additional evidence, the WCJ reconsidered and found the shoulder condition compensable, ordering defendants to pay reasonable and necessary treatment. After defendants sought reconsideration and a new trial, the WCJ denied relief. The appellate court previously remanded for a judgment containing adequate decretal language, after which the WCJ issued an amended judgment. Defendants then appealed, and the Second Circuit affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…