DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., 390 So. 2d 1318.

112 citing documents.

  • Watson v. Louisiana Paving Co. 441 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    In other words, plaintiff alleges the odd-lot doctrine, as defined in Oster *34 v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., applies to the facts of this case and therefore he is entitled to total disability compensation beyond the period of total disability determined by the trial judge.
  • Faucheux v. Hooker Chemical Corp. 440 So. 2d 1377 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    However, it is a further rule of law in Louisiana that substantial pain cases must also be analyzed within the framework of the Odd Lot Doctrine adopted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., (La.
  • Morgan v. Offshore Hammers, Inc. 439 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    23:1221(2); Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Sanders v. Caddo Parish School Board 438 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Fielder v. Triple S. Masonry 438 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    The test for application of the odd-lot doctrine was enunciated by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., : In order to determine whether the plaintiff fits within this category of odd-lot workers, he must show that because of his physical impairment, mental capacity, education, training, age, availability of employment in his area, and any other relevant factor, that he cannot perform the substantial and materia
  • Calhoun v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies 437 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    Therefore, under Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., the trial court did not err in classifying the claimant as totally disabled under the odd-lot doctrine.
  • Guerrero v. Tico 436 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Cotten v. Union Tank Car Co. 434 So. 2d 1219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Defendants cite the “odd-lot” doctrine enunciated in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., and its progeny as inferring an obligation on the part of a partially disabled employee to accept employment which he is capable of performing.
  • Clark v. Aqua Air Industries, Inc. 435 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    Under the “odd lot” test4 as announced in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., an injured employee is entitled to total, permanent disability compensation if he is not able to perform any services other than those which are so limited in quality, dependability, or quantity that a reasonably stable market for them does not exist, so that he falls into the “odd lot” category, unless the
  • Harrelson v. Louisiana Pacific Corp. 434 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • LeBaron v. Louisiana Pacific Corp. 434 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., (La.
  • Brasseaux v. Argonaut Ins. Co. 432 So. 2d 1153 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc. 434 So. 2d 65 La. 1983
    we adopted the so-called "odd-lot" doctrine which provides that the claimant is entitled to a total and permanent disability when he establishes a prima facie case that, because of the physical impairment and other factors such as mental capacity, education, and training, he can perform no services other th
  • Calogero v. City of New Orleans 434 So. 2d 177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., and Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc.
  • McCoy v. Kroger Co. 431 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    23:1221(2) by virtue of the inclusion of the "odd-lot" doctrine in our jurisprudence by Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Nash v. Ewing Timber, Inc. 431 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • Andrus v. Lafayette Parish School Board 430 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., (La.
  • Shatoska v. Intern. Grain Transfer, Inc. 430 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Attaway v. Farley's Glass Co., Inc. 430 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Heath v. Goldrus Drilling Co. 429 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    ODD-LOT DETERMINATION The Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the odd-lot doctrine as the guiding concept in determining total disability in the cases of Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Fancher v. Overhead Doors, Inc. 425 So. 2d 965 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Comparing the facts and circumstances of this proceeding with Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., Wilson v. Ebasco Services, Inc., and other “odd lot” and “working in pain” decisions, we cannot say that the appealed-from judgment was clearly erroneous in any respect, and we affirm it.
  • Robichaux v. Terrebonne Parish Sch. Bd. 426 So. 2d 241 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Martin v. HB Zachry Co. 424 So. 2d 1002 La. 1982
    we adopted the so-called "odd-lot" doctrine which provides that the claimant is entitled to a total and permanent disability when he establishes a prima facie case that, because of the physical impairment and other factors such as mental capacity, education, and training, he can perform no services other th
  • Naquin v. Texaco, Inc. 423 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    In Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., the Supreme Court stated the following concerning permanent and total disability under the 1975 amendment to LSA-R.S.
  • Wheat v. Ford, Bacon and Davis Const. Corp. 424 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    In Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., this doctrine was formulated as follows: "In order to determine whether the plaintiff fits within this category of oddlot workers, he must show that because of his physical impairment, mental capacity, education, training, age, availability of employment in his area, and any other relevant factor, that he `
  • Brown v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc. 422 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    See, , (La.1980); Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Henson v. Handee Corp. 421 So. 2d 1134 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Latiolais v. Ashy Enterprises, Inc. 420 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Beginning with the case of Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., the Supreme Court of Louisiana has allowed workers to obtain total permanent disability awards if they can establish that they belong to the odd lot classification.
  • Comeaux v. Cameron Offshore Services, Inc. 420 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    However, substantial pain cases must also be analyzed within the framework of the Odd Lot Doctrine adopted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc. 434 So. 2d 70 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Bazile v. Pellerin Milnor Corp. 433 So. 2d 1058 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    A at 1253: “ this court adopted the odd lot doctrine under which the claimant is entitled to benefits for total disability when he establishes a prima facie case that, because of his physical impairment and of other factors such as his mental capacity, education, and training, he can perform no services other than those
  • Walgamotte v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc. 420 So. 2d 1157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    The Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the odd lot doctrine in the 1980 case of Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., explaining as follows: “In order to determine whether the plaintiff fits within this category of odd lot workers, he must show that because of his physical impairment, mental capacity, education, training, age, availability of employment in his area, and any other relevant factors, that he “cannot perform t
  • Brown v. Celotex Corp. 420 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    However, plaintiff contends that the limitations on his ability to work because of his inability to lift with force over his head places him in the category of an “odd lot”
  • Culp v. Belden Corp. 416 So. 2d 1311 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Furthermore, substantial pain cases now must be analyzed within the framework of the odd-lot doctrine adopted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., and further explained in Oster v. Wetzel Printings, Inc.
  • Ginter v. Goudchaux's, Inc. 417 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    As a further argument, Mrs. Ginter contends that she should be found to be disabled under the “odd-lot” doctrine, as set forth in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • White v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. 416 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
    This brings us to a discussion of whether plaintiff has made out a prima facie case that he fits within the "odd-lot" category as set forth by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Droze v. McCarty Corp. 415 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    I The Louisiana Supreme Court in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., introduced the "odd-lot" doctrine of total disability into the jurisprudence interpreting La.R.S.
  • Salvador v. Slidell Industries, Inc. 415 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Kirkley v. DSI Transports, Inc. 416 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    In Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., (La.
  • Schouest v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc. 411 So. 2d 1042 La. 1982
    "Odd-lot" became a jurisprudential reality in Louisiana in 1980 with Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Crockett v. St. Paul Ins. Co. 413 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Under the "odd lot" test [4] as announced in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., an injured employee is entitled to total, permanent disability compensation if he is not able to perform any services other than those which are so limited in quality, dependability, or quantity that a reasonably stable market for them does not exist, so that he falls into the "odd lot" category, unless the
  • Laughlin v. City of Crowley 411 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    In making determinations of whether an employee is totally and permanently disabled, Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., concluded that the "Odd Lot" doctrine should be used as a guide in interpreting the provisions of LSA-R.S.
  • Wool v. Parish of Jefferson 411 So. 2d 1198 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
    See Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Lopez v. Sid Oden & Co. 411 So. 2d 1135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Powell v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. 410 So. 2d 308 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    We have considered that a workman such as Powell may be considered disabled within the “odd lot” doctrine as stated in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., however, the evidence of disability of this man is not such as to require us to apply that principle here.
  • Barrios v. Rheem Manufacturing Co. 410 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    As observed by the trial judge in his reasons for judgment, the answer to the question is to be determined by application of the “odd-lot” doctrine.
  • Poland v. American Mutual Insurance 409 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    In Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., the Supreme Court held that the odd lot doctrine should be utilized by the courts as the guiding concept in determining whether an injured employ *1296 ee is “unable to engage in any gainful occupation for wages,” and is thus permanently and totally disabled.
  • Vernon v. Aetna Life & Casualty Insurance 409 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Cases involving substantial pain should be analyzed within the framework of the “odd lot” doctrine adopted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Elie v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 408 So. 2d 297 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
  • Augustine v. COURTNEY CONST. CO., ETC. 405 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    However, substantial pain cases must also be analyzed within the framework of the Odd Lot Doctrine adopted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.