
    Marlene JACOBS et al. v. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE, INC., et al.
    No. 9446.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
    July 30, 1979.
    Writ Granted Oct. 8, 1979.
    
      James E. Shields, New Orleans, for plaintiffs.
    A. R. Christovich, Jr., New Orleans, for defendants.
    Before REDMANN, GULOTTA and BEER, JJ.
   REDMANN, Judge.

On remand from the supreme court for reconsideration we remand to the district court to allow defendant to present psychiatric and other evidence on the question whether plaintiff mother has any psychological disability as a result of the accident after which she continued to work for two and a half years until shortly before trial.

To reinstate the trial judge’s award would be unfair to defendant because plaintiff alleged only that she was physically injured and disabled; she did not allege that she had suffered any psychological disability or injury. Defendant had no occasion to expect and therefore to defend against a claim for psychological disability.

Remanded; costs to await outcome.

BEER, Judge,

concurring.

The district court made the categoric, factual determination that plaintiff, Marlene Jacobs, had “some slight mechanical or orthopedic disfunction in the cervical area . that ... did not disable her” and went on to conclude that “Marlene Jacobs does not have any disc pathology of any significance.” The court further concluded that plaintiff worked continuously from the time of the accident “until the current term of school,” but then determined that plaintiff experienced a psychological disability which the court describes as: “what I consider a conversion reaction.” Thus, the awards for $50,000 for “pain and disability,” $50,000 for “loss of earning capacity” and $8,000 for “future medical expenses” are clearly based upon the “conversion reaction” determination.

I deem it imperative that, on remand, the district court accord full opportunity to the defendants to challenge any claim based upon this so-called “conversion reaction,” which is a creature of the trial court’s “Reasons for Judgment,” that term having been missing from the evidence or the expert testimony of the physicians.  