DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

216 citing documents.

  • Smith v. Roy O. Martin Lumber Co. 871 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    The Louisiana Supreme Court in Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1631 (La.2/25/03), , examined whether a failure to authorize a medical procedure for an employee eligible to receive workers' compensation is tantamount to a failure to furnish compensation benefits, thus warranting penalties and attorney fees under La.R.S.
  • Lawrence Hagler Smith v. Roy O. Martin Lumber Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    2/25/03), examined whether a failure to authorize a medical procedure for an employee eligible to receive workers’ compensation is tantamount to a failure to furnish compensation benefits, thus warranting penalties and attorney fees under La.R.S.
  • Sims Rachal v. Good Neighbor Glass, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • Floyd Boone, Jr. v. Mid-State Marketing La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    2/25/03), the supreme court recognized that failure to authorize comes under La.R.S.
  • Rachal v. Good Neighbor Glass, Inc. 867 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1631 (La.2/25/03), .
  • Boone v. Mid-State Marketing 867 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    In Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1631(La.2/25/03), , the supreme court recognized that failure to authorize comes under La.R.S.
  • Jackson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 868 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    Authement v. Shappert Engineering, XXXX-XXXX (La.2/25/03), .
  • Myrtle K. Latigue v. Christus St. Patrick Hospital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    2/25/03), the supreme court recognized that failure to authorize comes under La.R.S.
  • Latigue v. Christus St. Patrick Hosp. 861 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    In Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1631(La.2/25/03), , the supreme court recognized that failure to authorize comes under La.R.S.
  • Darrell Ranel v. McDonald's La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
  • Ranel v. McDonald's 858 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1681 (La.2/25/03), .
  • Edmondson v. PCA International, American Studios 859 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    CA offered no evidence attempting to controvert Edmondson’s testimony that her request for medicine in conjunction with her January 1999 neck surgery was not paid, and that the conclusions of the WCJ regarding the appropriateness of imposing penalties and attorney fees is a question |sof fact subject to the manifest error rule, see Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 2002-1631, p. 12 (La.2/25/03), -89 , because the imposition of a penalty and attorney fees was reasonably based on the evidence and
  • McLin v. Industrial Specialty Contractors 851 So. 2d 1135 La. 2003
    Authement v. Shappert Eng'g, 02-1632 (La.2/25/03), .
  • Stelly v. Health South Rehabilitation 854 So. 2d 960 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    Authement v. Shappert Eng'g, 02-1631 (La.2/25/03), .
  • Nuzum v. TCI Turner Corp. 857 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Although TCI is correct in its interpretation of the law as stated in Howard, the Louisiana Supreme Court, in Authement v. Shappert Engineering, XXXX-XXXX (La.2/25/03), , 2003 WL 536744 , settled a conflict within the circuits regarding this issue.
  • Ryland v. ST. MARY'S TRAINING SCHOOL 843 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    Further, our supreme court has recently stated in Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1631 (La.2/25/03), , that a failure to authorize treatment is effectively a failure to furnish benefits.