Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lee v. Schumpert, 836 So. 2d 1214.
-
Murphy v. Graphic Packaging, Inc.
112 So. 3d 1040
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
Morgan Chase v. Louis, 44,309 (La.App.2d Cir.5/13/09), ; Lee v. Schumpert, 36,733 (La.App.2d Cir.1/29/03), .
-
Kinchen v. City of Shreveport
73 So. 3d 1011
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Johnson, supra, citing Young v. Christus Schumpert Medical Center, 39,593 (La.App.2d Cir.5/11/05), ; Lee v. Schumpert, 36,733 (La.App.2d Cir.1/29/03), .
-
Dombrowski v. PATTERSON-UTI DRILLING COMPANY, LLC
63 So. 3d 308
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Young v. Christus Schumpert Medical Center, 39,593 (La.App.2d Cir.5/11/05), ; Lee v. Schumpert, 36,733 (La.App.2d Cir.1/29/03), .
- City of Bossier City v. Colvin 36 So. 3d 1207 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
-
Fortner v. GUIDE CORP.
27 So. 3d 1035
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Morgan Chase v. Louis, 44,309 (La.App.2d Cir.5/13/09), ; Lee v. Schumpert, 36,733 (La.App.2d14 Cir.1/29/03), .
-
Whatley v. NABORS DRILLING USA, LP
26 So. 3d 253
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Young v. Christus Schumpert Medical Center, 39,593 (La.App.2d Cir.5/11/05), ; Lee v. Schumpert, 36,733 (La.App.2d Cir.1/29/03), .
-
J.P. Morgan Chase v. Louis
12 So. 3d 440
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
2 Cir. 1/29/03), , and citations therein.
- Thomas v. Hollywood Casino 13 So. 3d 717 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
-
Johnson v. Bossier Parish School Board
3 So. 3d 580
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Young v. Christus Schumpert Medical Center, 39,593 (La.App.2d Cir.5/11/05), ; Lee v. Schumperi, 36,733 (La.App.2d Cir.1/29/03), .
- Brien v. Leon Angel Constructors, Inc. 978 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
-
Jackson v. Red River Parish School Bd.
954 So. 2d 818
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
2d Cir.01/29/03), -21 , this court explained how a claimant must prove that she has an occupational disease: The claimant asserting an occupational disease must prove, by a preponderance of evidence, a disability related to an employment-related disease, that it was contracted during the course of employment, and that it is the re
-
Chassion v. Cingular Wireless
943 So. 2d 591
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
App. 2 Cir. 1/29/03), -21 (emphasis added) (citations omitted), the court described the burden of proof for a claimant asserting an occupational disease as follows: The claimant asserting an occupational disease must prove, by a preponderance of evidence, a disability related to an employment-related disease, that it was contracted du
-
Brenda Chaisson v. Cingular Wireless
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
We find that Dr. Mayeux’s testimony is similar to the testimony in Lee, that was found to sufficiently support a claim of epicondylitis and CTS as occupational diseases characteristic of and 2 Upon remand from the supreme court, the second circuit again ruled in favor of the employer in Fite v. Louisiana Title Co., 36,393 (La.App.
-
Taylor v. Hollywood Casino
935 So. 2d 293
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
App.2d Cir.01/29/03), -21 , this court described the burden of proof for a claimant asserting an occupational disease with the following language: The claimant asserting an occupational disease must prove, by a preponderance of evidence, a disability related to an employment-related disease, that it was contracted during the course of
-
Hammock v. Weyerhaeuser
917 So. 2d 733
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Young v. Christus Schumpert Medical Center, 39,593 (La.App.2d Cir.5/11/05), ; Lee v. Schumpert, 36,733 (La.App.2d Cir.1/29/03), .
- Hays v. Western Refractory Construction, Inc. 903 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
- Young v. Christus Schumpert Medical Center 902 So. 2d 1180 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
-
Williams v. Mark Johnson Plumbing
882 So. 2d 1193
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Lee v. Schumpert, 36,733 (La.App.2d Cir.1/29/03), .
- Dowell v. Ochsner Clinic of Baton Rouge 874 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
-
Thomason v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
852 So. 2d 1283
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Lee v. Schumpert, 36,733 (La.App.2d Cir.1/29/03), .
-
Jones v. General Motors Corp.
847 So. 2d 6
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
With regard to SEB, this court in Lee v. Schumpert, 36,733 (La.App.2d Cir.01/29/03), , explained: A claimant is entitled to receive supplemental earnings benefits if she sustains a work-related injury that results in her inability to earn 90% or more of her average pre-injury wage.