# Crump v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

> Louisiana Court of Appeal · April 11, 1978 · 357 So. 2d 1374

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7490247

## Case

- **Full name:** Valco CRUMP v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY and National Gypsum Company
- **Court:** Louisiana Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** April 11, 1978
- **Citations:** 357 So. 2d 1374; 1978 La. App. LEXIS 2706
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Schott
- **Judges:** Beer, Lemmon, Schott
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7490247

## Opinion text

SCHOTT, Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with my colleagues that the record does not support the conclusion that plaintiff is entitled to compensation benefits for disability resulting from the occupational disease of asbestosis under the provisions of LSA-R.S. 23:1031.1. Once that conclusion is reached, however, I am unable to agree that plaintiff’s claim has not prescribed.
Chivoletto v. Johns-Manville Products Corp., 330 So.2d 295 , La.1976, and the other eases cited in the majority opinion held that prescription against a claim for disability from an occupational disease does not begin to run until the disease becomes disabling as opposed to the time when the disease is first diagnosed and known to the plaintiff. This is so because the compensation act *1378 does not provide benefits for the mere contraction of an occupational disease but only if disability results from such disease.
The majority would award plaintiff benefits under R.S. 23:1221(4)(p) on the theory that the usefulness of a physical function, namely, plaintiff’s lungs are seriously, permanently impaired. The record shows that plaintiff’s condition was essentially unchanged from 1971 when his condition was first diagnosed as asbestosis. Consequently, the present impairment of his physical function has existed since 1971 and his claim for benefits under that section of the act has long prescribed.
The cases cited by the majority as authority for overruling the exception of prescription have no application to a claim for benefits based on the impairment of a physical function, and consequently I would maintain the exception and dismiss plaintiff’s suit.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7490247. Public record. Not legal advice.