DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite LeMelle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 883 So. 2d 526.

14 citing documents.

  • Beatrice Joseph v. Iberia Parish School District La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
    3 Cir. 9/29/04), Phillips v. Diocese of Lafayette, 03-1241 (La.App.
  • Robert Burke v. Venture Transport Logistics, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    In Magbee, a panel of this court discussed the implications of an employer relying on a utilization review to deny medical benefits and stated: In LeMelle v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 04–527, pp. 10–11 (La.9/29/04), –53, this court set out the law pertaining to the award of penalties in instances where the employer has denied recommended treatment based on utilization review: As stated in Harrington v. Coastal Construction & Engineering, 96– 681, p. 3 (La.App.
  • Burke v. Venture Transport Logistics, LLC 131 So. 3d 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    In Magbee , a panel of this court discussed the implications of an employer relying on a utilization review to deny medical benefits and stated: In LeMelle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 04-527, pp. 10-11 (La.9/29/04), -53 , this court set out the law pertaining to the award of penalties in instances where the employer has denied recommended treatment based on utilization review: As stated in Harrington v. Coastal Construction & Engineering, 96-681, p. 3 (La.App.
  • Dena Romero v. Garan's, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    3 Cir. 9/29/04), -53), we stated the law pertaining to the award of penalties based on an employer’s refusal to authorize recommended medical treatment based on utilization review: As stated in Harrington v. Coastal Construction & Engineering, 96- 681, p. 3 (La.App.
  • Magbee v. Federal Express 105 So. 3d 1048 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    In LeMelle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 04-527, pp. 10-11 (La.9/29/04), -53 , this court set out the law pertaining to the award of penalties in instances where the employer has denied *1057 recommended treatment based on utilization review: As stated in Harrington v. Coastal Construction & Engineering, 96-681, p. 3 (La.App.
  • Paul Magbee v. Federal Express La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    9/29/04), -53, this court set out the law pertaining to the award of penalties in instances where the employer has denied recommended treatment based on utilization review: As stated in Harrington v. Coastal Construction & Engineering, 96-681, p. 3 (La.App.
  • Bridgette Johnson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • Johnson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 88 So. 3d 527 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • Smith v. Town of Olla 966 So. 2d 1165 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    3 Cir. 9/29/04), ) (wherein this court stated that the "amount of the statutory attorney fees rests within the discretion of the WCJ [workers' compensation judge], provided the amount is supported by the record.") Accordingly, this assignment has no merit.
  • Elaine Smith v. Town of Olla La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    3 Cir. 9/29/04), ) (wherein this court stated that the “amount of the statutory attorney fees rests within the discretion of the WCJ [workers’ compensation judge], provided the amount is supported by the record.”) Accordingly, this assignment has no merit.
  • Rose A. Rose v. Maison Deville Care Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Rose v. Maison Deville Care Center 927 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Yuronda Jackson v. St. Francis Cabrini Hospital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Jackson v. CHRISTUS HEALTH CENTRAL LOUIS. 922 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006