Legal Opinion · Dissent

Richards v. Travelers Insurance Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided February 10, 1976No. 7274Published

1DissentGulotta, Judge

I respectfully dissent. The uncontro-verted medical testimony is that plaintiff is suffering from a “conversion reaction”. Dr. Jack K. Wickstrom, in his deposition, stated, “I mean the conversion reaction, which is as real to him as if he had an axe in his back.” Dr. Wickstrom’s examination revealed “freedom of organic disease”. Significantly, Dr. Wickstrom further indicated that he did not feel that Richards was a malingerer and related the conversion reaction to the October 25, 1965 incident.

Dr. Raoul Rodriguez corroborated Dr. Wickstrom’s opinion that he did not think plaintiff was a…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Miller v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1957
  2. Muse v. Sentry Insurance CompanyLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1972
  3. Cain v. Travelers Ins. Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1971
  4. Lanclos v. Homer Knost Construction Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1972
  5. Lanclos v. Homer Knost Construction Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1972

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API