Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Carrington v. Consolidated Underwriters, 89 So. 2d 399.

57 citing documents.

Edwards v. Sawyer Indus. Plastics, Inc. 790 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
App. 2d Cir.1955), judgment modified on other grounds, , (1956) (the statute requires that fees be fixed in the judgment awarding compensation, otherwise, such fees shall not be allowed); Valentine v. Southern Advance Bag & Paper Co., (La.App.
Johnson v. Guastella Construction & Realty Co. 338 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
the established rule is: “After determining an employee’s daily wage, the six day week is to be employed in calculating his weekly wage.
Constant v. State 272 So. 2d 675 La. 1973
943 , (1961); , (1956); Malone, Louisiana Workmen's *678 Compensation Law, Section 323 (1951, esp.
Griffin v. Hochendel 263 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
and Spears v. Traders and General Insurance Company, La.App., , where, under similar circumstances, penalties and attorney’s fees were disallowed.
Eaves v. Louisiana Cypress Lumber Company 219 So. 2d 771 La. 1969
Thus, , we held that the failure to pay the total compensation sought by plaintiff was not an arbitrary or capricious refusal to pay it when no demand had been made on the *751 employer for the increased sum .and.
Lewis v. Bellow 212 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
23:1021(11), 23:1221; , (1956); Malone, Louisiana Workmen's Compensation, Sections 322, 323, 326 (1951).
Giddings v. Coal Operators Casualty Co. 205 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
clarified this question and make the absolute pronouncement that a six-day work week must be employed in computing workmen’s compensation benefits.
Barnes v. De Soto Parish School Board 181 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
(1956) established the proper method of arriving at an employee’s, daily wage in a workmen’s compensation case.
Funderburk v. Southwestern Iron Corp. 180 So. 2d 4 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Hadwin v. American Mutual Liability Insurance 171 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Lawhon v. Spooner 170 So. 2d 155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
(1956), which held that regardless of the number of days actually worked by the employee his weekly compensation payments should be computed on the basis of six working days.
Saltalamacchia v. Strachan Shipping Co. 163 So. 2d 548 La. 1964
901 , ; , ; Finley v. Hardware Mutual Insurance Company, 237 La.
Lee v. Smith 162 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Accordingly, , , the remunerative award for the deprivation of Plaintiff’s ability to continue the performance of the duties for which he was employed is 65% of his weekly wage of $54 not to exceed $35 per week.
McPhearson v. Hunt Lumber Co. 158 So. 2d 430 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Spencer v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. 152 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
943 , ; , ; Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., 177 La.
Franklin v. Old Colony Insurance Company 150 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
943 , ; , ; Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., 177 La.
Federick v. National Surety Corp. 149 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
943 , ; , ; Collins v. Southern Pulpwood Ins.
Brown v. Benton Creosoting Co. 147 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
943 , ; , ; Rylander v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., 177 La.
Venable v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 142 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
and Hoffman v. City of New Orleans, 240 La.
Joseph v. Southern Pulpwood Insurance 140 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
In fixing the weekly compensation rate at $31.20- , .
Fuselier v. Travelers Insurance Co. 141 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Collins v. Southern Pulpwood Insurance Company, (La.Ct.App., 3 Cir., 1962), .
Collins v. Southern Pulpwood Insurance 138 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
the Supreme Court sets the formula for calculating the weekly wage of a claimant.
Anderson v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 138 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Glover v. Schuylkill Products Company 138 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
It is only fair to point out, however, that a , , in which it was held that where the employee did not demand the increase due or complain of the manner in which his compensation rate was computed, payment on the basis of a five-day, rather than a six-day work week was not arbitrary, capricious or without probable cause.
Meshell v. Sabine Lumber Co. 137 So. 2d 70 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Plaintiff contends, correctly we think, that according to the evidence his daily rate of pay was $8.00, , , his rate of compensation must be computed on the basis of a six day week.
Doucet v. Ashy Construction Co. 134 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Shuff v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 134 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
the daily wage, once determined, must be multiplied by 6 (a 6 day week) in order to calculate the average weekly wage.
Gill v. Hillyer, Deutsch, Edwards, Inc. 132 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
App., , , 404 regarding the compensation rate.
Phillips v. Underwriters at Lloyd's of London 128 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
In so doing defendant fell into patent, manifest error and disregarded the jurisprudence established by the Supreme Court of this State in Carrington v. Consolidated Underwriters, 1956, , and recently followed in Pope v. Coney, La.App., , wherein all former confusion and uncertainty with respect to the manner of computing compensation rate was resolved.
Rashall v. Fallin & Savage Timber Co. 127 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Although defendant argues that plaintiff's compensation rate should be computed on the basis of a 5-day week since plaintiff testified that he never worked more than 5 days per week, , , holds explicitly that after determining an employee's daily wage the six-day week is to be employed in calculating his weekly wage for purposes of workmen's compensation.
Stewart ex rel. Stewart v. Johnston 127 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
531 , ; , ; Varnell v. Roy O. Martin Lumber Co., Inc., La.App., ; Hoffman v. City of New Orleans, La.App., .
Hoffman v. City of New Orleans 125 So. 2d 774 La. 1961
796 , ; , ; and Farley v. Ryan Stevedoring Company, Inc., 238 La.
Fontenot v. Travelers Insurance Company 125 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
ly rate of $30, the trial court computed the compensation rate due as 65% of weekly wages of $51 (i. e., $33.15 reduced to the then statutory maximum of $30 applicable at the time of the accident), correctly using a , , 404: "After determining an employee's daily wage, the six day week is to be employed in calculating his weekly wage.
Chapman v. Matthews 126 So. 2d 409 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Carrington v. Consolidated Underwriters, 1956, , , rehearing denied.
Graham v. Blewer 124 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Murphy v. American General Insurance Company 122 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
There can be no question as to the conclusion that plaintiff is entitled to a weekly award based upon a six-day week; , .
Moore v. Pullig 123 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
After the decision of the Supreme Court in Carrington v. Consolidated Underwriters, 1956, , , this question can no longer be considered as debatable in workmen’s compensation suits.
Miller v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America 121 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
531 , ; Carrington v. Consolidated Underwriters, 1956, , ; Neldare v. Schuylkill Products Company, La.App.
Hoffman v. City of New Orleans 121 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
531 , ; , ; Colquette v. La.
Pope v. Coney 119 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
The subject matter presently being considered was again before the Supreme Court on a , , in which case the employee involved was shown to have been receiving wages at the rate of 85¢ per hour for a 40 hour week.
Walters v. General Accident & Fire Assur. Corp., Ltd. 119 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
in support of the foregoing principle.
Darby v. Johnson 118 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
However, as the trial court noted, allthough earlier jurisprudence may have permitted the computation of compensation on the basis of a five-day work week (see Malone, Louisiana Workmen's Compensation, Section 323), the Supreme Court in Carrington v. Consolidated Underwriters, 1956, , , reiterated and clarified earlier pronouncements and held flatly that, for purposes of computing the compensation rate of an injured employee, the six-day work week must be employed.
Lapoint v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania 118 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
“The facts in this case are similar to those presented in Carrington v. Consolidated Underwriters, La.App., , decided by the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, and later amended and affirmed by the Supreme Court ( , ).
Fourcade v. Ryan Stevedoring Co. 117 So. 2d 587 La. 1960
531 , ; , ; Colquette v. La.
Hatten v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. 112 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
Varnell v. Roy O. Martin Lumber Co. 113 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
531 , ; Carrington v. Consolidated Underwriters, 1956, , ; Guillory v. Coal Operators Casualty Company, La.App.1957, .
Brown v. Crown Zellerbach Corp. 112 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
23:1021; , ) or $43.20 per week, which would entitle him to an award of $28.08 per week.
Sepulvado v. Argonaut Underwriters Insurance Co. 111 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
796 , ; Carrington v. Consolidated Underwriters, 1956, , .
Spears v. Traders & General Insurance 111 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Neldare v. Schuylkill Products Co. 107 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
ual day of the injury, based not upon the number of days per week he was employed but upon the number of days he could possibly have secured employment had he not been injured, or six days a week.” This rule was reaffirmed in the case of Martin v. Great American Indemnity Co., La.App., , 420 , .