DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., 389 So. 2d 367.

85 citing documents.

  • Crocker v. Home Insurance Co. 428 So. 2d 1280 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., (La.
  • Field v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 427 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc.
  • Lastrapes v. CNA Ins. Co. 426 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    The remand was for the purpose of giving defendant the opportunity to show that some form of gainful employment was regularly and continuously available to plaintiff within reasonable proximity to her residence, considered by the majority of that panel to be mandated by Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc.
  • Martin v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 427 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc.
  • Carter v. Pitt Grill, Inc. 425 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc.
  • Martin v. HB Zachry Co. 424 So. 2d 1002 La. 1982
    Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., Whitaker v. Church's Fried Chicken, Inc., (La.
  • Wheat v. Ford, Bacon and Davis Const. Corp. 424 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc.
  • Gautreaux v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 422 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., (La.App.
  • Brisco v. Board of Elementary & Second. Educ. 422 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., and cases cited therein.
  • Brown v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc. 422 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    As Chief Justice Dixon stated: “The claimant who alleges disability because of inability to perform his usual and regular duties without substantial or appreciable pains must establish the existence of that condition to a reasonable certainty and by a fair preponderance of testimony.” Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, 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
    Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., Augustine v. Courtney Construction Co., Inc., (La.App.
  • Comeaux v. Cameron Offshore Services, Inc. 420 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    1981); Wilson v. Ebasco Services, Inc., Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., Whitaker v. Church's Fried Chicken, Inc.
  • Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc. 434 So. 2d 70 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc.
  • Bazile v. Pellerin Milnor Corp. 433 So. 2d 1058 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    applicable.” We disagree with the trial court’s conclusion of law as to his application of the odd lot doctrine to find the plaintiff permanently and totally disabled.
  • Walgamotte v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc. 420 So. 2d 1157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    *1159 Since the case of Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., it has been clear under Louisiana law that a worker who cannot return to any gainful employment without substantial pain is entitled to compensation benefits for total disability.
  • Nguyen v. Lengsfield Bros., Inc. 417 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • 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.
  • Kirkley v. DSI Transports, Inc. 416 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    See Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc.
  • Bordelon v. Ranger Ins. Co. 413 So. 2d 962 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Wilson v. Ebasco Services, Inc., Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., Whitaker v. Church's Fried Chicken, Inc.
  • Distinguished Crockett v. St. Paul Ins. Co. 413 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    We find Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., relied upon by appellants, factually distinguishable in that in Dusang a skilled worker was still able to perform a skilled craft, while in the present case there is no evidence that Mrs. Crockett could do any work other than work categorized as of the "odd lot" variety, if indeed she could do that type of
  • Wool v. Parish of Jefferson 411 So. 2d 1198 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
    Nevertheless, under the recent decision of the State Supreme Court, i.e., Dusang v. Beck Builders, Inc., Schouest v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., (1981), this does not mean plaintiff is precluded from receiving compensation benefits.
  • Lopez v. Sid Oden & Co. 411 So. 2d 1135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Inc., that if plaintiff’s pain appreciably limits the types of work available to him and greatly diminishes his ability to compete in the labor market, he [can] be treated as an “odd lot” worker and be awarded total disability status, unless there is proof that jobs are realistically available to him.
  • Augustine v. COURTNEY CONST. CO., ETC. 405 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Wilson v. Ebasco Services, Inc., Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., Whitaker v. Church's Fried Chicken, Inc.
  • Cottonham v. Rockwood Ins. Co. 403 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    ODD LOT DOCTRINE: DUSANG TO LATTIN The defendant-appellant, Rockwood, contends that under the rationale of the recent Louisiana Supreme Court case of Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., plaintiff is only partially disabled because he is able to perform and is actually engaged in gainful employment at the present time.
  • Hall v. H. B. Zachary Co. 402 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    We refer to the case of Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., which, except for the type of injuries suffered, is based upon a similar factual situation.
  • Reliford v. Dobson Pulpwood Co. 401 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Wilson v. Ebasco Services, Inc., Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., Whitaker v. Church’s Fried Chicken, Inc.
  • Lastrapes v. CNA Ins. Co. 401 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Wilson v. Ebasco Services, Inc., Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., Whitaker v. Church's Fried Chicken, Inc.
  • Taintor v. Standard Supply & Hardware Co. 398 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Lee v. Pratt-Farnsworth Construction Co. 397 So. 2d 2 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    However, defendants rely on Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., for the proposition that even though plaintiff may be working in pain where he is able to find work on a regular basis he is only partially disabled.
  • Lattin v. Hica Corp. 395 So. 2d 690 La. 1981
    1981); Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., Whitaker v. Church's Fried Chicken, Inc.
  • Wilson v. Ebasco Services, Inc. 393 So. 2d 1248 La. 1981
    Dusang v. Henry Beck Builders, Inc., (La.
  • Calogero v. City of New Orleans 397 So. 2d 1252 La. 1980
    See Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., et al.
  • Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Mitchell 392 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    In the recent case of Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, et al., (La.
  • Lemoine v. Marksville Industries, Inc. 391 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Only one week before this case was argued in our court, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, et al.