Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Tantillo v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 315 So. 2d 743.

69 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Christopher Cloudie La. 2026
Marshall v. Town of Winnsboro 184 So. 3d 796 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
Co., claiming “[generally, medical testimony which js not in conflict cannot be overcome by lay testimony.” In Tantillo, supra at 748-49 , the Louisiana Supreme Court actually stated: It is generally true that medical testimony which is not in conflict cannot be overcome by lay testimony.
Bridges v. Quality Inn Midtown 626 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Co., for the proposition that lay evidence must be considered as well as medical evidence in deciding a worker’s compensation case.
Zeigler v. Pleasant Manor Nursing Home 600 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Guidry v. United Furniture Distributors, Inc. 544 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Green v. American Motorists Insurance Co. 539 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Merritt v. Crown Zellerbach 525 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Clark v. State Farm Ins. Co. 520 So. 2d 860 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Brunson v. State 510 So. 2d 1349 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Hollier v. American Building Systems, Inc. 503 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Gullage v. F.W. Woolworth Co. 492 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Guillory v. State 486 So. 2d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Thus, -49 (La.1975), makes it clear that the court is not here relegated to considering the sole testimony of the plaintiff-appellant.
Deaville v. J.B. Talley & Co. 482 So. 2d 967 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
The rule of law as to the evidence which the district court must consider in a
Randall v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. 470 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
stated: "It is generally true that medical testimony which is not in conflict cannot be overcome by lay testimony.
Hughes v. General Motors Guide Lamp Div. 469 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Gibson v. Hayes Oilfield Const. Co. 467 So. 2d 1304 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Crawford v. Al Smith Plumbing & Heating Service, Inc.
Lamette v. Morrison Assur. Co. 461 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Benoit v. Giant Rentals, Inc. 458 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Crawford v. Al Smith P & H Service, Inc.
Latiolais v. Home Ins. Co. 454 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Crawford v. Al Smith Plumbing & Heating Service, Inc.
Peck v. TG & Y STORES CO. 451 So. 2d 1327 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Dauzat v. Gregory & Cook, Inc. 454 So. 2d 807 La. 1984
Williams v. Hudson East, 261 La.
Johnson v. Ins. Co. of N. America 454 So. 2d 1113 La. 1984
Chiasson v. Lafourche Parish Council 449 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
*113 rehearing denied 1975; Thornell v. Payne and Keller, Inc., supra .
Harrison v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co. 446 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Grigsby v. Argonaut Insurance Company, supra.
Johnson v. Insurance Co. of North America 440 So. 2d 1385 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Gauthier v. Helmerich & Payne Drilling, (La.App.
Martin v. Emerson Elec. Co. 437 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Calhoun v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies 437 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Guerrero v. Tico 436 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
Crump, ; -597 (La.1977); -749 (La.1975); Williams v. Hudson East, 261 La.
Pendleton v. Spartan Bldg. Const. 432 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
Williams v. Commercial Union Assur. Co. 422 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Daney v. Argonaut Ins. Co. 421 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Achord v. HE Weise Const. Co. 422 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Crawford v. Al Smith P. & H. Service, Inc., supra
Ellis v. Rapides Parish School Bd. 419 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
: "It is generally true that medical testimony which is not in conflict cannot be overcome by lay testimony.
Woods v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. 415 So. 2d 978 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Batiste v. Pointe Coupee Constructors, Inc., et al., (La.App.
Babineaux v. Continental Oil Co. 407 So. 2d 1323 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
While all of the lay testimony, including that of plaintiff herself is characterized by the usual selfserv-ing emphasis, imperfect memory, and some inconsistency, the court was fairly impressed by the credibility of the lay testimony and believes that it presents a substantially accurate picture of the plaintiff’s disability ...” our Supreme Court stated: “Lay testimony has great probative value in establishing certain facts, such as the existence and location of pain and the actual ability or i
Gauthier v. Helmerich & Payne Drilling Co. 401 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Guidry v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Const. Corp., (La.App.
Fredericks v. Associated Indem. Corp. 401 So. 2d 575 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Batiste v. Pointe Coupee Constructors 401 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Hookfin ex rel. Grady v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets 398 So. 2d 1218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Hookfin v. SCHWEGMANN BROS., ETC. 398 So. 2d 1218 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
Abshire v. Dravo Corp. 396 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Johnson v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 389 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
as follows: "It is generally true that medical testimony which is not in conflict cannot be overcome by lay testimony.
Simpson v. SS Kresge Co. 389 So. 2d 65 La. 1980
Latin v. Hica Corp. 384 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Henley v. FG Sullivan, Jr., Contractor, Inc. 385 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Simpson v. S. S. Kresge Co. 379 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
ollowing the April visit, in which he stated he was “unable to demonstrate any evidence of lumbar disc pathology in this patient” and desired to defer further diagnostic treatment until X-rays could be done after “she delivers her pregnancy.” When both the medical and lay evidence concerning this plaintiff’s disability are examined, as mandated by Tantillo v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., et al., it is clear that she was capable of performing the duties of her former employment after December 1,
Weller v. Brown 398 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Frantz v. Schroeder, supra .
McBroom v. Argonaut Ins. Co. 370 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Crump v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co. 367 So. 2d 300 La. 1979
Lucas v. Insurance *303 Company of North America, Williams v. Hudson East, 261 La.
Drummer v. Central Pecan Shelling Co. 366 So. 2d 1333 La. 1978
Frantz v. Schroeder, supra.