Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Calogero v. City of New Orleans, 397 So. 2d 1252.

30 citing documents.

Wellmeyer v. Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio 663 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
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
Jackson v. Universal Match Corp. 535 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Jackson v. Georgia Cas. and Sur. Co. 513 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
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.
Levitz Furniture Corp. v. Horne 477 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
4th Cir.1983) and cases cited therein, on remand from (La.
Randall v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. 470 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Johnson v. Ins. Co. of N. America 454 So. 2d 1113 La. 1984
Faucheux v. Hooker Chemical Corp. 440 So. 2d 1377 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
5th Cir.1983); Lattin v. HICA Corporation, supra ; Wilson v. Ebasco Services, Inc., supra ; Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., supra ; Augustine v. Courtney Const. Co. of Alexandria, Inc., et al, (La.App.
Perrilloux v. Godchaux-Henderson Sugar Co. 436 So. 2d 1325 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
explained the odd lot doctrine as related to injured workers who can only continue to work in substantial pain as follows, at 1254: "The `odd lot' concept can be also applied in substantial pain cases where an injured worker, because of his injury, can function only with substantial pain or with the help of
LeBaron v. Louisiana Pacific Corp. 434 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Orgeron v. Tri-State Road Boring, Inc. 434 So. 2d 65 La. 1983
Busang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., Whitaker v. Church's Fried Chicken, Inc., (La.
Calogero v. City of New Orleans 434 So. 2d 177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
That court remanded the case back to the trial court, for more evidence limited to the question of whether plaintiff could reasonably be considered an odd-lot worker, in light of two recent opinions of the Supreme Court that set forth a new standard.
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.
Patin v. Continental Cas. Co. 424 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Lawless v. Steel Erectors, Inc., 254 La.
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.
Brown v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc. 422 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
See, , (La.1980); Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc.
Comeaux v. Cameron Offshore Services, Inc. 420 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
See Lattin v. HICA Corporation, supra; Wilson v. Ebasco Services, Inc., supra; Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., supra.
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, an
Culp v. Belden Corp. 416 So. 2d 1311 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
See Lattin v. HICA Corporation, supra; Wilson v. Ebasco Service, Inc., supra; (La.
Salvador v. Slidell Industries, Inc. 415 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Schouest v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc. 411 So. 2d 1042 La. 1982
Crockett v. St. Paul Ins. Co. 413 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Martin v. H. B. Zachry Co. 411 So. 2d 1123 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
In support of this contention, wherein the court also stated that the above “odd lot” doctrine can also be applied if a worker’s pain appreciably limits types of work available to him and greatly diminishes his ability to compete in the labor market.
Augustine v. COURTNEY CONST. CO., ETC. 405 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
See Lattin v. HICA Corporation, supra; Wilson v. Ebasco Services, Inc., supra; Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., supra.
Cottonham v. Rockwood Ins. Co. 403 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
The Supreme Court subsequently adopted the odd lot doctrine as the guiding concept in determining permanent total disability in Oster v. Wetzel Printing, Inc., (La.
Lastrapes v. CNA Ins. Co. 401 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
See Wilson v. Ebasco Services, Inc., supra ; , (La.1980); Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., supra .
Lattin v. Hica Corp. 395 So. 2d 690 La. 1981
See Wilson v. Ebasco Services, Inc., supra ; Dusang v. Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc., supra .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by