Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hanks v. Seale, 904 So. 2d 662.
-
In Re: Medical Review Panel Proceedings for the Claim of Jack Edward Price, II (D)
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
6/17/05), Stuka v. Fleming, 561 So.
- John Robinson, Jr. v. Pelican Waste & Debris, LLC, Prime Insurance Company and Jamie Delasbour La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
-
Cynthia Cannady v. Dr William Yates and Mary Stell, NP
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
6/17/05), Hall v. Brookshire Bros, Ltd., 02-2404 (La.
- Shawn Copell v. Arceneaux Ford, Inc. and Amtrust North America, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
- Ronald Hicks v. USAA General Indemnity Company, Robert L. Harger, Jr., R.L. Harger and Associates, Inc. and Harger … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
-
John Thibodeaux v. Gulfgate Construction, LLC
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
Hanks v. Seale, 04–1485, p. 16 (La.6/17/05)
- Thibodeaux v. Gulfgate Constr., LLC 270 So. 3d 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
- Latulippe v. Braun 253 So. 3d 820 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
- LeCompte v. Continental Casualty Co. 224 So. 3d 1005 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
- Laureen Olson v. Paul M. Toce, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
- Olson v. Toce 222 So. 3d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
- Medical Review Panel of Williams v. Emsa Louisiana, Inc. 203 So. 3d 419 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
-
Toston v. St. Francis Medical Center, Inc.
178 So. 3d 1084
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
Plaintiffs argue that according to the ruling of the Louisiana Supreme Court in Hanks v. Seale, 04-1485 (La.6/17/05), , the determination of liability in a trial between the malpractice victim and the healthcare provider- precludes the PCF’s challenge in these assignments of error.
-
Khammash v. Clark
145 So. 3d 246
La. 2014
Moreover, they reason the partial summary judgment against Dr. Barrow binds the PCF as res judicata and rely heavily upon our decision in Hanks v. Seale, 04-1485 (La.6/17/05), , for the proposition that the partial summary judgment became final when the PCF failed to appeal it, thus precluding the PCF from contesting liability, which consists of a finding of both fault and |9causation.
-
Watkins v. Lake Charles Memorial Hospital
144 So. 3d 944
La. 2014
See Hanks v. Seale, 2004-1485 (La.6/17/05), ; Hall v. Brookshire Brothers, Ltd., 848 So.2d at 568 .
-
Warden v. Richoux
40 So. 3d 139
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
Hanks v. Seale, 04-1485, p. 16 (La.6/17/05); .
-
Goza v. Parish of West Baton Rouge
21 So. 3d 320
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Hanks v. Seale, 04-1485, p. 16 (La.6/17/05), .
-
Brown v. City of Madisonville
5 So. 3d 874
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Hanks v. Seale, 04-1485, p. 16 (La.6/17/05), .
-
Berthelot v. Patients' Compensation Fund Oversight Board
977 So. 2d 967
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
3 Hanks v. Seale, 04-1485 (La.6/17/05), -669 ; O’Brien, 898 So.2d at 364 .
-
Miller v. Bossier
940 So. 2d 54
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Hanks v. Seale, 04-1485 (La.6/17/05), .
-
McBride v. XYZ Insurance
935 So. 2d 326
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Hanks v. Seale, 2004-1485 (La.6/17/05), .
-
Hayes v. State Farm Insurance Co.
928 So. 2d 742
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
In Hanks v. Seale, 2004-1485 (La.6/17/05), , the supreme court explained that when the record establishes that future medical expenses will be necessary and inevitable, the court should not reject an award of future medical expenses because the record does not provide the exact value of the necessary expenses.
-
Williams v. Enriquez
915 So. 2d 434
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Hanks v. Seale, 04-1485 (La.6/17/05), .
-
Bartee v. CHILD. CLINIC OF SOUTHWEST LOUIS.
910 So. 2d 470
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
In addition we note, in the recent case of Hanks v. Seale, 04-1485 (La.6/17/05), , the Louisiana Supreme Court, specifically addressing the mandates in La.