Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Glidden v. Alexandria Concrete Company, 137 So. 2d 894.

53 citing documents.

Brown v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc. 422 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc. 434 So. 2d 70 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc. 389 So. 2d 367 La. 1980
Norman v. Phil-A-Sac, Inc. 368 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
625 , in which the driver of a cement-mixer truck contracted cement dermatitis.
Lowe v. St. Tammany Parish School Board 341 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
625 , (1962), is: “The pain must be substantial enough to be disabling in that it either prevents the worker from carrying out some of the functions of his job or, where the pain is not so intense as to hinder the worker’s fulfillment of his duties, it must be shown that performance of the work would be deleterious to his h
Broussard v. Subsurface Completion Service, Inc. 338 So. 2d 1217 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Armstrong v. Gulf States Fishing & Rental Tools, Inc. 338 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
625 , ; Dupard v. M & C Construction Co., La.App., .
Carter v. Roy O. Martin Industries, Inc. 336 So. 2d 1002 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
(1962); Taylor v. Meeker Sugar Cooperative, Inc., (La.App.
Thomas v. Southern Shipbuilding Corp. 334 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Dupard v. M & C CONSTRUCTION CO. 312 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
Sanders v. Boh Bros. Construction Co. 304 So. 2d 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Grigsby v. Argonaut Insurance Company 297 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
625 [626], (1962), the Supreme Court stated: "...
Carroll v. Southern Casualty Insurance Company 285 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
625 , (1962); Lavergne v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins.
Davis v. Home Insurance Company 291 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
Breaux v. Kaplan Rice Mill, Inc. 280 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
Ory v. Metal Building Products Co. 265 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
625 , (1962); Heed v. Calcasieu Paper Company, Inc., 233 La.
Perkins v. Southern Casualty Insurance 262 So. 2d 791 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Williams v. Hudson East 261 So. 2d 629 La. 1972
Jackson v. Allied Chemical Corp. 259 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
(1962), where a cement truck driver developed “cement dermatitis” and a resulting sensitivity to cement.
Pender v. National Fire and Marine Insurance Co. 255 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
3 Cir. 1969); Glidden v. Alexandria Concrete Company, Inc., , (1962).
Weidert v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 247 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
In discussing the doctrine of disability, our Supreme Court said in Glidden v. Alexandria Concrete Co., Inc., et al., , (1962), “* * * The pain must be substantial enough to be disabling in that it either prevents the worker from carrying out some of the functions of his job or, where the pain is not so intense as to hinder the worker’s fulfillment of his duties, it must be shown that performance of the work would be de
Chapman v. Travelers Insurance Co. 250 So. 2d 248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Powell v. Patterson Truck Lines, Inc., La.App., ; Lantier v. Guy Scroggins, Inc., La.App., .
Jackson v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. 242 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
Sholes v. Gulf Building Service 234 So. 2d 81 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
625 , (1962), applied aiimitation of the principle and said at p. 897: “It would be illogical, however, to treat this doctrine as encompassing all degrees of discomfort and make a complete or ‘good-as-new’ recovery essential before an.
James v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 230 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
625 , , our Supreme Court held as follows : “The question, then, is whether plaintiff’s skin condition constitutes total disability with regard to the driving of trucks generally?
Guidry v. Gianfala & Son, Inc. 228 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Lantier v. Guy Scroggins, Inc. 223 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Guidry v. Seacoast Products, Inc. 220 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Veuleman v. Bituminous Casualty Corp. 223 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
625 , ; Reed v. Calcasieu Paper Co., 233 La.
Mouton v. Habetz 215 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Jones v. Woodson Construction Co. 213 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
(1962); Taylor v. Meeker Sugar Cooperative, Inc., Price v. Walgreen’s Company, (La.App.3d Cir. 1967
Tyler v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. 212 So. 2d 437 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
625 , (1962), stated: “ ‘It would be illogical, however, to treat this doctrine as encompassing all degrees of discomfort and make a complete or ‘good-as-new’ recovery essential before an employer may stop compensation payments.
Vidrine v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 205 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
(1962), our Supreme Court said: “ * * * The pain must be substantial enough to be disabling in that it either prevents the worker from carrying out some of the functions of his job or, where the pain is not so intense as to hinder the worker’s fulfillment of his duties, it must be shown that performanc
Haynes v. Atlas Construction Co. 199 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
625 , and stated “ * * * The Court found that the facts available were insufficient for it to determine whether or not bodily exertion and its resultant increase in body temperature and production of perspiration would retard plaintiff’s recovery and remanded the case for the taking of this essential medical testimony.
Milligan v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 200 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
a Supreme Court case, held as follows: “ ‘It would be illogical, however, to treat this doctrine as encompassing all degrees of discomfort and make a complete or ‘good-as-new’ recovery essential before an employer may stop compensation payments.
Landry v. Central Excavation Co. 196 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
625 , 626, (1962); Loflin v. Erectors and Riggers, Inc., (La.App.
Bellard v. Insurance Co. of North America 193 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
625 , ; Wright v. National Surety Corp., 221 La.
Flowers v. EM Toussel Oil Co. 190 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
625 , ; Boucvalt v. Boucvalt, 233 La.
Jamison v. Reese Variety Stores, Inc. 181 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
denied) ; , (1962); and Burk v. Security Insurance Co. of New Haven, 248 La.
Higginbotham v. Newsom Truck Line, Inc. 181 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Robinson v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 181 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
625 , ), or at least a reasonable indication that additional evidence exists which is lacking from the record but which may be sufficient to justify an award of compensation by its supplement of substantial evidence already in the record (cf. Rawls v. Dixie Drilling Co., La.App.
Moreau v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. 180 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
747 , ; Glidden v. Alexandria Concrete Co., Inc., et al., , ; Williams v. Travelers Insurance Co., La.App.
Burk v. Security Insurance 177 So. 2d 278 La. 1965
art. 2164 (1961); , (1962); Wade v. Calcasieu Paper Company, 229 La.
Taylor v. Meeker Sugar Cooperative, Inc. 177 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
625 , , our Supreme Court set out the following rule which we think is applicable here: “It would be illogical, however, to treat this doctrine as encompassing all degrees of discomfort and make a complete or ‘good-as-new’ recovery essential before an employer may stop compensation payments.
Beaugez v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 173 So. 2d 869 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
(1962), the Supreme Court stated: “ * * * So it is said that plaintiff is disabled as a consequence of the dis *872 comfort he must bear, should he resume the occupation of truck driver, for the law will not deprive an injured person of compensation when, although he is physically able to perform his t
Smith v. Travelers Insurance Company 174 So. 2d 241 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
Lavergne v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 171 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
625 , ; Murphy v. Baton Rouge Coca-Cola Bottling Co., La.App.
Kemp v. L. L. Brewton Lumber Co. 168 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
745 , ; , (1962); Anderson v. Rowan Drilling Company, La.
Distinguished Rawls v. Dixie Drilling Co. 161 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
745 , ; , ; and Bettis v. Perry, La.App.
Williams v. Travelers Insurance Company 157 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963