Cited by

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

69 citing documents.

Thompson v. NATCHITOCHES PARISH HOSPITAL ETC. 365 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
Barksdale v. Southern Airways, Inc. 365 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
relied on the following interpretation of the burden imposed by La.R.S.
Braddy v. Triangle Timber, Inc. 353 So. 2d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
” We have reviewed all of the testimony in this record, including the depositions of the two orthopedic surgeons that examined the plaintiff, and we are convinced that the Trial Judge was in error in giving more weight to the testimony of plaintiff and her husband than to the testimony of the treating orthop
Crawford v. Al Smith P. & H. Service, Inc. 352 So. 2d 669 La. 1977
Thompson v. Southern Casualty Insurance Co. 349 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Meshell v. Rivers 348 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Norris v. Southern Casualty Insurance Co. 342 So. 2d 874 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
on the significance of lay testimony.
Hamilton v. Georgia Pac. Corp. 344 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Lucas v. Ins. Co. of North America 342 So. 2d 591 La. 1977
Williams v. Hudson East, 261 La.
St. Pe v. HP Foley Elec. Co. 341 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
Loyd v. Atlas Construction Co. 341 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
plaintiff’s and his wife’s lay testimony as to his alleged current physical disability would not have been admissible as there is no conflict in the medical testimony on this issue.
Smith v. Angelle 339 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
The trial court, was of the opinion that plaintiff had discharged this burden.
Johnson v. Guastella Construction & Realty Co. 338 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Appellant argues we are not bound exclusively by the medical evidence and that we are obliged to consider the lay testimony as well, citing the case of Tantillo v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, La., , which overruled a long line of cases holding that if there was no conflict in the medical testimony then lay testimony should not be considered.
Sanders v. Western Casualty & Surety Company 337 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
Tantillo v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., La., (1975).
James v. Jake Tusa's Restaurant & Bar 332 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Corley v. Tidewater Construction Corp. 331 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Lewis v. Insurance Company of North America 322 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
(1975) 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 inability of a claimant to perform certain physical functions or to pursue his regular employment.
Farrar v. Guy Atkinson Company 325 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
Appellant contends the lower court erred in these conclusions
De Roche v. H. B. Fowler & Co. 322 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
our Supreme Court rejected the rule that the court could not consider lay testimony in the absence of a conflict in the medical testimony.