Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lattin v. Hica Corp., 395 So. 2d 690.

86 citing documents.

Jackson v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. 676 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
3 Cir.1982) (), this court recognized that a worker who cannot return to any gainful employment without suffering substantial pain is entitled to compensation benefits for total disability.
Coates v. BYRD CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. 650 So. 2d 237 La. 1995
At the time applicant was injured, the odd lot doctrine, which permitted courts to make disability determinations in light of a claimant's physical condition, mental capacity, education, training, age and other factors, applied to temporary total disability determinations.
Thomas v. Union Tank Co. 647 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Bradley v. Arnold Lege Alligator Farm 625 So. 2d 591 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
[2] The jurisprudentially established odd lot doctrine, has been legislatively eliminated from temporary total disability benefits by the 1989 amendments to LSA-R.S.
Johnson v. FID. & CAS. INS. CO. OF NY 618 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
as follows: Under the odd lot doctrine, a claimant is considered totally disabled if his injury makes him an odd lot in the labor market, that is, one capable of obtaining employment periodically but one whose services are so limited in quality, dependability or quantity that a reasonably stable market
Zeigler v. Pleasant Manor Nursing Home 600 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Borne v. Tompkins-Beckwith, Inc. 595 So. 2d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Co. of N. America, Whitaker v. Church’s, (La.
Picou v. Circle, Inc. 578 So. 2d 1183 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
Hill v. LJ Earnest, Inc. 568 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
1983); Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., DeGruy v. Pala, Inc., supra ; Jackson v. Georgia Casualty & Surety Company, supra ; (La.App.
Durbin v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. 558 So. 2d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
-694 (La.1981), explained the odd lot doctrine as it applied to permanent and total disability as follows: Under the odd lot doctrine, a claimant is considered totally disabled if his injury makes him an odd lot in the labor market, that is, one capable of obtaining employment periodically but one whose services a
Estopinal v. National Tea Co. 545 So. 2d 1133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
The employer or insurer must then show that some form of gainful occupation is regularly and continuously available to the employee within reasonable proximity to the employee’s residence.”
Jackson v. Universal Match Corp. 535 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
See also, Dusang v. Henry *1290 C. Beck Builders, Inc., Whitaker v. Church 's Fried Chicken, Inc.
Merritt v. Crown Zellerbach 525 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
DeGruy v. Pala, Inc. 525 So. 2d 1124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Hale v. Pinecrest State School 505 So. 2d 987 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Loud v. Dixie Metal Co. 506 So. 2d 1355 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Chance v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York 509 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Notto v. MORTON-NORWICH PROD. INC. 498 So. 2d 1158 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
as follows: "The odd lot doctrine is also applicable to substantial pain cases because a worker who, due to his injury, can function only with substantial pain or with the help of fellow workers may not be considered a particularly desirable employee.
Favorite v. Texas Road Gin 499 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Ainsworth v. Wells Lamont Corp. 499 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Layssard v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co. 490 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Wall v. Sisters of Charity of Incarnate Word 488 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
explains the circumstances in which the "odd lot" doctrine may also be applicable.
Simon v. Western Preferred Casualty Co. 491 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
: “Under the odd lot doctrine, a claimant is considered totally disabled if his injury makes him an odd lot in the labor market, that is, one capable of obtaining employment periodically but one whose services are so limited in quality, dependability or quantity that a reasonably stable market for his service
Duplechain v. Offshore Shipyard, Inc. 481 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., Whitaker v. Church’s Fried Chicken, Inc.
Wheat v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Construction Corp. 479 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Wheat, 424 So.2d at 297 .
Scott v. Terrebonne Lumber Co. 479 So. 2d 410 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Clement v. Scaffolding Rental & Erection Services, Inc. 480 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Du-sang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., supra.
Smith v. Ranger Insurance Co. 476 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Rodney v. Crown Zellerbach Corp. 470 So. 2d 538 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Lanus v. Gulf Wandes Corp. 470 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Marine v. Cornwall Equities, Ltd. 472 So. 2d 70 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Molina v. Browning Ferris Industries Chemical Service, Inc. 468 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Corp., a case cited by the trial court in his reasons for judgment, the burden of proof in “odd-lot” cases was discussed.
LaPrarie v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 463 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Wilson v. Ebasco Services, Inc., Lemoine v. Employers Cas.
Shatoska v. International Grain Transfer, Inc. 465 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., Vernon v. Aetna Life and Cas.
Cupit v. Amax Nickel, Inc. 454 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Holland v. TG & Y. STORES 451 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
at 693-694 (La.1981): Under the odd lot doctrine, a claimant is considered totally disabled if his injury makes him an odd lot in the labor market, that is, one capable of obtaining employment periodically but one whose services are so limited in quality, dependability or quantity that a reasonably stable market for h
Johnson v. Ins. Co. of N. America 454 So. 2d 1113 La. 1984
Crisp v. Southern Silk Screen, Inc. 451 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Procell v. Employers Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin 450 So. 2d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Alexis v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 449 So. 2d 1084 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Chiasson v. Lafourche Parish Council 449 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
23:1221; [1] Vernon v. Aetna Life and Cas.
Reynolds v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 445 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Zachry Co., Schouest v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., Wilson v. Ebasco Services, Inc., Gilcrease v. J.A.
Gales v. Dresser Industries, Inc. 444 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Citing Wilson v. Ebasco Services, Inc., the Supreme Court stated: “These cases underscore the fact that in compensation situations where pain is the linchpin to make out a prima facie case for a worker’s classification in the odd lot category, the pain accompanying routine physical tasks and attempts to return to work must be substantial, serious
Vernon v. Aetna Life and Cas. Ins. Co. 442 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
693 and 694 (La.1981), the court gives the complete analysis to be used: Under the odd lot doctrine, a claimant is considered totally disabled if his injury makes him an odd lot in the labor market, that is, one capable of obtaining employment periodically but one whose services are so limited in quality, dependabil
Johnson v. Insurance Co. of North America 440 So. 2d 1385 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Faucheux v. Hooker Chemical Corp. 440 So. 2d 1377 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
Wilson v. Ebasco Services, Inc., (La.
Morgan v. Offshore Hammers, Inc. 439 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
stated that substantial pain claims of total, permanent disability should also be determined within the framework of the “odd-lot” doctrine.
Fielder v. Triple S. Masonry 438 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Singleton v. Bushnell & Co. 437 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Wilson v. Ebasco Services, Inc.
Miller v. Electrical & Pneumatic Services, Inc. 434 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983