Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hall v. Pipe Line Service Corporation, 98 So. 2d 202.

17 citing documents.

Bourgeois v. Houma General Painting 515 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
[2] The judge then correctly stated that the Plaintiff could not recover both for temporary total disability and for the loss of use of the foot, , (1957).
Jacks v. Banister Pipelines America 418 So. 2d 524 La. 1982
[3] See, , (1957); Washington v. Independent Ice & Cold Storage Co., 211 La.
Campbell v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York 339 So. 2d 339 La. 1976
Evans v. Naihaus 326 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
Malone, Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Law and Practice § 282 (1951); , (1957).
Caldwell v. Exxon Corporation 320 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
(1957), a workman suffered some degree of permanent partial loss of the function of his left foot as a result of severing his Achilles tendon in the lower portion of his left leg.
Breen v. Bituminous Casualty Company 249 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
App. 4th Cir. 1967); , (1957).
Heymann v. Dixie Leasing Corporation 250 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
[4] , ; Ventress v. Danel-Ryder, Inc., La.App., ; Allen v. Insurance Company of North America, La.App., .
Ventress v. Danel-Ryder, Inc. 225 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
Miller v. General Chemical Division, La.App.
Allen v. Insurance Company of North America 216 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
(1957); Ernest v. Martin Timber Co., supra; O'Connor v. American Mutual Liability Ins.
Jones v. Pearce & LeBlanc Contracting Co. 188 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Applying the formula used by this court in Mitchell v. Connecticut Indemnity Company, supra, which is identical to that prescribed by the Supreme Court in Hall v. Pipe Line Service Corporation (1957) , , we find plaintiff has received all the compensation to which he is entitled.
Tillman v. Webre Steel Co. 182 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
23:1221, the amount of such payment shall be deducted from any compensation allowed under subdivision (4) thereof or under Sub-part C of this Part.” , .
Lethermon v. American Insurance Co. 129 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Hall v. Pipe Line Service Corporation, 1957, , ; Fontenot v. Myers, La.App.1959, .
Henry v. Ware Cotton Batting Plant of F. Burkart Mfg. Co. 117 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
approved our holding to that effect in O’Connor v. American Mutual Liability Ins.
Francois v. Circle Drilling Company 112 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
In addition, in making the awards for specific disability upon which provisions the present award is to be patterned, the award of the percentage of loss is to be based upon a percentage of 65% of the full wages paid rather than upon a percentage of the weekly rate of workmen's compensation payable for total disability, , ; Morgan v. Standard Acc.
Fontenot v. Myers 109 So. 2d 259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
ction of the members mentioned herein-above, compensation shall bear such proportion to the amounts named herein for the total loss of such members as the disability to such members bears to the total loss of the member, * * exceed the compensation payable for the loss of such member.” A , .
Humphreys v. Marquette Casualty Co. 103 So. 2d 895 La. 1958
Paul Mercury Indemnity Co., , .
Spurlock v. American Automobile Insurance 101 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
the Supreme Court erroneously awarded attorney’s fees in a compensation case.