# Byrd v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety & Corrections

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · May 23, 1994 · 637 So. 2d 114

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7680103

## Case

- **Full name:** Eugene BYRD v. STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS and the State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Health and Human Resources
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** May 23, 1994
- **Citations:** 637 So. 2d 114; 1994 La. LEXIS 1247
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Iqrtique
- **Judges:** Believing, Hmarvin, Hoe, Iqrtique, Ortique, Reasons, Trial, Watson, Wrong
- **Cited by:** 5 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/7680103

## Opinion text

| iQRTIQUE, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion as in my view, the trial court was not clearly wrong in rendering judgment in favor of plaintiff. A careful review of the record in this case reveals that the testimony of each of the medical experts who testified was fraught with inconsistencies as their trial testimony often conflicted with their deposition testimony and their direct testimony conflicted with their testimony on cross examination. The trial court having heard conflicting testimony, which at times was internally inconsistent, made a credibility determination to accept portions of the testimony of the various expert witnesses and reject other portions of the testimony of those same witnesses. As a result, the trial court correctly concluded that the plaintiff met his burden of proof and rendered judgment accordingly.
The jurisprudence recognizing the fundamental right, duty and privilege of the trial court to evaluate inconsistent testimony is so voluminous that citation is unnecessary. This same jurisprudence unhesitatingly opines that the trial court is in a superior position to discern the oughtness of the testimony.
We have consistently held that where there is conflicting testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review. |2In this case, several permissible views of the evidence were presented, therefore, the fact finder’s choice among them cannot be clearly wrong nor manifestly erroneous. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7680103. Public record. Not legal advice.