
    Richard CADOR v. NEAL’S CYPRESS INN and Commercial Union Insurance Company.
    No. 2002 CA 1976.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
    Aug. 20, 2003.
    Writ Denied Dec. 12, 2003.
    John Lambremont, Sr., Baton Rouge, for Appellant Plaintiff Richard Cador.
    Robert May, Metairie, for Appellees Defendants Neal’s Cypress Inn and Commercial Union Ins. Co.
    Walter Smith Baton Rouge, for Appel-lees Defendants Craig Neal, Linda Neal, Michael Neal, Jack Neal and Lisa Neal.
    
      Michael Clegg, Baton Rouge, for Appel-lee Defendant Craig Neal.
    Christopher Philipp, Lafayette, for Ap-pellee Defendant Mississippi Physicians Insurance.
    Donald Moore, Gulfport, MS, for Appel-lee Defendant Neal’s Magnolia Inn.
    Panel composed of Judges FRANK FOIL, PAGE McCLENDON and WILLIAM F. KLINE, JR.
    
    
      
       Judge WILLIAM F. KLINE, Jr., Retired, serving Pro Tempore by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court.
    
   J^FOIL, J.

Claimant, Richard Cador, appeals from a judgment dismissing his claim for workers’ compensation benefits against his employer, Neal’s Cypress Inn, Inc. (NCI), and several other defendants. We affirm.

NCI, a hotel located in New Roads, Louisiana, employed Mr. Cador as a maintenance worker. The shareholders of NCI also owned Neal’s Magnolia Inn, Inc. (NMI), a hotel in Woodville, Mississippi. Mr. Julius Carter owned a building near NMI. Mr. Cador’s right leg was fractured in several places when he fell from a ladder while painting Mr. Carter’s building.

Mr. Cador filed a workers’ compensation claim against NCI, NMI, the individual shareholders of both corporations, as well as various insurers. After a trial, the workers’ compensation judge found Mr. Neal had failed to prove he was an employee of NCI, NMI, or any of the corporate shareholders at the time he was injured. Rather, the workers’ compensation judge found Mr. Neal was performing work as an independent contractor at the time of his accident. Mr. Cador appeals.

On appeal, Mr. Cador contends the workers’ compensation judge erred in finding he was an independent contractor at the time of his accident. Mr. Cador also argues that, even if he were an independent contractor, he is still entitled to workers’ compensation benefits under the “manual laborer” exception in La. R.S. 23:1021(6).

An appellate court must affirm a workers’ compensation judgment unless it is based on legal error or factual findings that are manifestly erroneous. Novak v. North Oaks Medical Center, 00-0005 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/28/01), 809 So.2d 340, 341. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude the legal conclusions and factual findings of the workers’ compensation judge are correct.

Accordingly, we affirm the workers’ compensation judgment. Costs of the appeal are assessed to Mr. Cador.

AFFIRMED.

McCLENDON, J., concurs with reasons.

KLINE, J., dissents with reasons.

hMcCLENDON, Judge,

concurring.

I respectfully concur. In applying the manifest error rule, a court of appeal may not substitute its own view of the evidence for factual findings of the trier of fact that are reasonable and supported by the evidence. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La.1989). Herein, the workers’ compensation judge’s determination that Mr. Ca-dor was an independent contractor was based heavily on credibility determinations. Therefore, although my opinion may differ, I cannot say that it was manifestly erroneous.

11KLINE, J.

dissents.

I respectfully dissent and would remand this case to the trial court to determine under the facts or any additional circumstances if the plaintiff is afforded coverage under La. R.S. 23:1021(6), to wit:

‘Independent Contractor’ means any person who renders service, other than manual labor, for a specified recompense for a specified result either as a unit or as a whole, under the control of his principal as to results of his work only, and not as to the means by which such result is accomplished, and are expressly excluded from the provisions of this Chapter unless a substantial part of the work time of an independent contractor is spent in manual labor by him in carrying out the terms of the contract, in which case the independent contractor is expressly covered by the provisions of this Chapter.  