Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Everett v. Goldman, 359 So. 2d 1256.

158 citing documents.

Pender v. Natchitoches Parish Hosp. 817 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Sonnier v. Opelousas Gen.
Geiger v. State Ex Rel Dept. of Health 815 So. 2d 80 La. 2002
Pope v. State 792 So. 2d 713 La. 2001
15:1171 is analogous to the Medical Malpractice Act
Campbell v. HOSPITAL SERV. DIST. NO. 1, CALDWELL PARISH 768 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Everett v. *812 Goldman, Rowsey v. Jones, 26,823 (La.App.2d Cir.5/10/95), .
State v. Smith 766 So. 2d 501 La. 2000
Dixon v. LA STATE UNIV. MEDICAL CENTER 750 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
cited in LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), .
Guitreau v. Kucharchuk 740 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Edwards v. Daugherty 729 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
State ex rel. Stewart v. Stewart 723 So. 2d 1051 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
LeBreton v. Rabito 714 So. 2d 1226 La. 1998
this provision requires that a patient "must provoke a medical review panel and receive an opinion from it before he can file suit in a court of law.
Morgan v. ABC MANUFACTURER 710 So. 2d 1077 La. 1998
Progressive SEC. Ins. Co. v. Foster 711 So. 2d 675 La. 1998
Kimball v. Allstate Ins. Co. 712 So. 2d 46 La. 1998
See, -70 (La.1978)(The "concerning any civil action" prohibition applied only where there is "concerned a distinct lawsuit or lawsuits or where the group of affected litigants or lawsuits has no rationally distinctive characteristics."); State v. McCue, 141 La.
Reeder v. North 701 So. 2d 1291 La. 1997
Bazley v. Tortorich, *1297
Safety Net for Abused Persons v. Segura 692 So. 2d 1038 La. 1997
Blackwell v. LA. DEPT. OF PUB. SAFETY 690 So. 2d 137 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Pendleton v. Barrett 675 So. 2d 720 La. 1996
Sonnier v. Opelousas General Hosp. 688 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Christophe v. State ex rel. Department of Health & Hospitals 663 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
|4 the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the sole duty of the medical review panel is to express its expert opinion(s) and that its findings were not binding on the litigants.
Proctor v. Calahan 663 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Rowsey v. Jones 655 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Bellard v. LOUISIANA CORR. & IND. SCHOOL 647 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Descant v. Adm'rs of Tulane Educ. Fund 639 So. 2d 246 La. 1994
2338 , 124 L.Ed.2d 249 (1993); -308 (La.1989) (Dixon, C.J., dissenting)
Hutchinson v. Patel 637 So. 2d 415 La. 1994
Police Ass'n of New Orleans v. City of New Orleans 635 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Kelty v. Brumfield 633 So. 2d 1210 La. 1994
for discussion of the Indiana law upon which the MMA and MLSSA were modelled, see Kinney, Gronfein, & Gannon, Indiana's Medical Malpractice Act: Results of a Three-Year Study, 24 Ind.L.Rev.
Thomas v. Insurance Corp. of America 633 So. 2d 136 La. 1994
Descant v. Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund 627 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Chief Justice Dixon, dissenting at 305-308; .
LeBlanc v. Meza 620 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Taylor v. Giddens 618 So. 2d 834 La. 1993
See *842 generally Crier v. Whitecloud, on reh'g, supra; (La.App.
Butler v. Flint Goodrich Hosp. of Dillard Univ. 607 So. 2d 517 La. 1992
2027 , 32 L.Ed.2d 600 (1972); (La.
Galloway v. Baton Rouge General Hosp. 602 So. 2d 1003 La. 1992
Gauthreaux v. Rheem Mfg. Co. 588 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
Fox v. Bd. of Sup'rs of La. State Univ. 576 So. 2d 978 La. 1991
Abate v. Healthcare Intern., Inc. 560 So. 2d 812 La. 1990
Moore v. Roemer 560 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
at p. 1268 , and the authorities cited therein.
Pierre v. Administrator, Louisiana Office of Employment Security 553 So. 2d 442 La. 1989
Pierre v. ADM'R, LA. OFFICE OF EMP. SEC. 553 So. 2d 442 La. 1989
Jarrell v. American Medical Intern., Inc. 552 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
discussed the state's interest in enacting the pre-suit medical review provision as follows: [T]he requirement that malpractice claims be filtered through a medical review panel is not unreasonable and seems to be a rational effort to accomplish a plausible goal.
Williams v. Kushner 549 So. 2d 294 La. 1989
381 (1919), (on original hearing)
Arceneaux v. Marler 542 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
All courts shall be open, and every person shall have an adequate remedy by due process of law and justice, administered without denial, partiality, or unreasonable delay, for injury to him in his person, property, reputation, or other rights.” For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we affirm the judgment of the trial court sustaining defendant’s the plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the medical review panel (required under the private Medical Malpractice Act) on due process and equa
Benedict v. Kearby 537 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
5th Cir.1988), which upheld the provision in question against identical arguments of unconstitutionality grounded in an asserted violation of equal protection of the laws of the State and Federal constitutions, which upheld the Medical Malpractice Act against due process challenges, we perceive no reason not to hold the same here.
ACCOUNTANTS'ASS'N OF LOUISIANA v. State 533 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Bridley v. ALTON OCHSNER MED. FOUNDATION HOSP. 532 So. 2d 905 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
briefly discussed the state's interests in enacting the pre-suit medical review provision: "[T]he requirement that malpractice claims be filtered through a medical review panel is not unreasonable and seems to be a rational effort to accomplish a plausible goal.
Toney v. Whitfield 531 So. 2d 445 La. 1988
reversed on other grounds, (La.
Williams v. Kushner 524 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Taylor v. Broom 526 So. 2d 1367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Barraza v. Scheppegrell 525 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
Brock v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets 520 So. 2d 711 La. 1988
Sibley v. Board of Supervisors of L.S.U., *715 , aff'd in part, rev'd in part and remanded on rehearing
Shortess v. Touro Infirmary 508 So. 2d 938 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987