Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 840 So. 2d 1181.

216 citing documents.

Brian Baca v. Natchitoches Parish Hospital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Bertrand v. Dow Chemical Co. 951 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Authement v. Shappert Eng'g, 02-1631 (La.2/25/03), .
Mia Figgins v. Wal-Mart La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Figgins v. Wal-Mart 945 So. 2d 153 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1631 (La.2/25/03), .
Guillory v. Bofinger's Tree Service 950 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Authement v. Shappert Engineering, XXXX-XXXX, p. 12 (La.2/25/03), -89 .
Sarah Captain v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Captain v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. 940 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
at 1226 (citing Authement v. Shappert Eng'g., 02-1631 (La.2/25/03), ).
Thompson v. City of New Orleans 933 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
In Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1631 (La.2/25/03), -89 , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: The determination of whether an employer or insurer should be cast with penalties and attorney fees in a workers' compensation action is essentially a question of fact.
Russell v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 933 So. 2d 193 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
8 (La.2/25/2003) , 1186-7 One purpose of the workers' compensation statute is to promptly provide compensation and medical benefits to an employee who suffers injury within the course and scope of employment.
Roberts v. Thibodaux Healthcare Center 934 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Authement v. Shappert Engineering, XXXX-XXXX (La.2/25/03), .
Douglas v. Isle of Capri 923 So. 2d 950 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
As noted by the supreme court in Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1631 (La.02/25/03), , 1188: The workers’ compensation scheme was not designed for the worker to pay the costs of his medical treatment.
Shelby Smith v. Morris & Dickson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Smith v. Morris & Dickson 924 So. 2d 1217 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Authement v. Shappert Eng'g, 02-1631 (La.2/25/03), .
Wall v. Avoyelles Correctional Center 921 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
This is very similar to the actions of the employer in Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1631, pp. 8-9 (La.2/25/03), -87 (footnote omitted)(emphasis ours), wherein the court stated: [W]e note that the title of a statute may be instructive in determining legislative intent.
David D. Reed v. Willis Abshire La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
2/25/03), held that failure to authorize treatment is a failure to furnish compensation benefits warranting the imposition of penalties and attorney fees except when the claim is reasonably controverted.
David Wall v. Avoyelles Correctional Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
2/25/03), -87 (footnote omitted)(emphasis ours), wherein the court stated: [W]e note that the title of a statute may be instructive in determining legislative intent.
Daryl Lebert v. McNeese State University La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Lebert v. McNeese State University 932 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1631 (La.2/25/03), .
Reed v. Abshire 921 So. 2d 1224 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
This court, relying on Authement v. Shappert Eng'g, 02-1631 (La.2/25/03), , held that failure to authorize treatment is a failure to furnish compensation benefits warranting the imposition of penalties and attorney fees except when the claim is reasonably controverted.
Landry v. Furniture Center 920 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1631(La.2/25/03), .
Dalton Landry v. Furniture Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Eddie Angelle v. Taylor Oilfield La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Angelle v. Taylor Oilfield 918 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1631 (La.2/25/03), .
Clifton Maricle v. Sunbelt Builders, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Authement v. Shappert Eng'g, 02-1631 (La.2/25/03), Galeano v. Taco Bell Corp., 02-904 (La.App.
Maricle v. Sunbelt Builders, Inc. 916 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Authement v. Shappert Eng'g, 02-1631 (La.2/25/03), ; Galeano v. Taco Bell Corp., 02-904 (La.App.
Nelson v. Windmill Nursery of Louisiana 923 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
23:1201 F. See also Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1631, p. 8 (La.2/25/03), , where the court concluded in a similar context that failure to authorize medical treatment equates to failure to provide benefits and shall result in the assessment of penalties and reasonable attorney fees under LSA-R.S.
Frith v. Riverwood, Inc. 892 So. 2d 7 La. 2005
Authement v. Shappert Engineering, XXXX-XXXX, p. 12 (La.2/25/03), .
Terry Sigler v. Dressers rand/coastal Chemical La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Sigler v. Rand 896 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Thompson v. the Animal Hosp. 889 So. 2d 1193 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Authement v. Shappert Engineering, XXXX-XXXX (La.2/25/03), ; Gay v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 32,653 (La.App.
Juan Rivera v. M & R Cable Contractors, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Rivera v. M & R Cable Contractors, Inc. 896 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1631 (La.2/25/03), .
Marlena Alexander v. Autozone, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
2/25/03), Galeano v. Taco Bell Corp., 02-904 (La.App.
Alexander v. Autozone, Inc. 889 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Authement v. Shappert Eng'g, 02-1631 (La.2/25/03), ; Galeano v. Taco Bell Corp., 02-904 (La.App.
David Cormier v. Louisiana Southwest Scrap & Salvage La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Cormier v. LOUISIANA SOUTHWEST SCRAP 888 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
[15] Authement v. Shappert Eng'g, 02-1627, p. 8 (La.2/25/03 ) , .
Hutchison v. Aldworth Co. 888 So. 2d 1052 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
In Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 2002-1631, p. 12 (La.2/25/03), , 1189 the Court held that the employer’s failure to authorize medical treatment equates to failure to provide benefits in accordance with workers’ compensation statute providing that failure to provide payment shall result in the assessment of penalty and reasonable attor *1061 ney fee.
Autin v. Wal-Mart 896 So. 2d 1049 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1631, p. 12 (La.2/25/03), .
Proactive Therapy v. Yellow Book, USA Consolidated With Jo Lynn Duran v. Yellow Book, USA La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Proactive Therapy v. Yellow Book, USA 880 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
See Belt, ; See also Timmons, and Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1631 (La.2/25/03), .
Ronald Lanclos v. Coastal Food, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
2/25/03), - 87, in which the Louisiana Supreme Court stated as follows: One purpose of the workers’ compensation statute is to promptly provide 19 benefits payable under this Chapter shall be paid within sixty days after the employer or insurer receives writt
Lanclos v. Coastal Food, LLC. 877 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
See Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1631, p. 8 (La.2/25/03), -87 , in which the Louisiana Supreme Court stated, as follows: One purpose of the workers' compensation statute is to promptly provide compensation and medical benefits to an employee who suffers injury within the course and scope of employment.
Thomas Vincent v. Napa Auto Parts and Supply La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
2/25/03), concluded that “[b]ased on this language [La.R.S.
Vincent v. NAPA AUTO PARTS AND SUPPLY 879 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1631 (La.2/25/03), , concluded that "[b]ased on this language [La.R.S.
Semere v. Our Lady of Lourdes Hosp. 875 So. 2d 1048 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
In addition, Our Lady of Lourdes claims that a formal demand is required, reproducing a portion of the recent supreme court decision in Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1631, p. 2 (La.2/25/03), , which states that "[a]s early as January 25, 2000, plaintiff's counsel communicated with St.
Mary Semere v. Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
2/25/03), which states that “[a]s early as January 25, 2000, plaintiff’s counsel communicated with St.
Calithia S. Thomas v. Westaff, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
2/25/03), the supreme court recognized that failure to authorize comes under La.R.S.
Thomas v. Westaff, Inc. 874 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Failure to Authorize In Authement v. Shappert Eng’g, 02-1631 (La.2/25/03), , the supreme court recognized that failure to authorize comes under La.R.S.
Miller v. Christus St. Patrick Hosp. 872 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1631, p. 12 (La.2/25/03), .
Marjorie Lane Miller v. Christus St. Patrick Hospital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004