Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Jacks v. Banister Pipelines America, 418 So. 2d 524.

42 citing documents.

Frith v. Riverwood, Inc. 878 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
[2] and Ambrose v. Fluor Constructors, Inc., (La.App.
Black v. Lofland Co. 869 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Holley v. Tate & Lyle 797 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Bamberg v. City of Shreveport, 26, 278 (La.App.
Bolton v. Grant Parish School Bd. 730 So. 2d 882 La. 1999
5th Cir.6/30/98), ; Graham v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 26-165 (La.App.2d Cir.9/23/94)
Graham v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. 643 So. 2d 352 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Paul Fire & Marine, 556 So.2d at 897-898
Bradley v. Arnold Lege Alligator Farm 625 So. 2d 591 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
and Lang Pham v. Delta Petroleum Co., Inc., (La.App.
Austin v. Howard Discount Stores, Inc. 569 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
[4] It should be noted that if the trial court, based upon proper evidence, is convinced that plaintiff is entitled to receive both supplemental earnings benefits and permanent partial disability benefits, allows only the recovery of one or the other.
Watson v. Amite Mill. Co., Inc. 560 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Durbin v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. 558 So. 2d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Ross v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 556 So. 2d 891 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Foster v. Manville Forest Products, Inc. 554 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Benton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 545 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Guidry v. BOH BROS. CONST. CO., INC. 545 So. 2d 538 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
our Supreme Court discussed the necessity of electing the appropriate provision under which the employee may recover: The statute does not explicate the relationship between the specific loss schedule and the total and partial disability provisions.
Ambrose v. Fluor Constructors, Inc. 537 So. 2d 1176 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
and Lemoine v. Brice Building Company, Inc., (La.App.
Hurley v. Grayer Energy Systems, Inc. 523 So. 2d 873 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
the court gave the employer credit for weeks of compensation paid for specific loss, and thereby reduced the amount of weekly benefits due under the partial disability provision.
Succession of Thomas v. General Fabrication & Service Co. 524 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Jacks v. Bannister [Banister] Pipe Line America
Killen v. Continental Ins. Co. 514 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Bourgeois v. Houma General Painting 515 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Simmons v. FORD, BACON & DAVIS CONST. 506 So. 2d 1300 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
: The statute does not explicate the relationship between the specific loss schedule and the total and partial disability provisions.
Lang Pham v. Delta Petroleum Co., Inc. 503 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
at 527, 528 (La.1982): "The statute does not explicate the relationship between the specific loss schedule and the total and partial disability provisions.
Ainsworth v. Wells Lamont Corp. 499 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Dugas v. J.A. Jones Construction Co. 491 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Broussard v. Zim's Alignment Service, Inc. 488 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
1st Cir.1981), affirmed as amended
Fontenot v. Aetna Life & Casualty Insurance Co. 487 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Stevenson v. Bolton Co., Inc. 484 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Miller v. Pan American World Airways, Inc. 480 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Varnado v. Sanders 477 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
: The statute does not explicate the relationship between the specific loss schedule and the total and partial disability provisions.
Lee v. Gaffney Const. Co. 474 So. 2d 994 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
: "Although the employee may not recover compensation for both his specific loss and his permanent partial disability, he is entitled to the more favorable of the two remedies.
Compton v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 467 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
23:1221(4)(p) which is at the minimum rate of $55.00 per week but not to exceed 100 weeks but with a credit against the 450 weeks to the defendant for any compensation paid under this section and in accordance with the decision in Jacks v. Bannister [Banister], (Supreme Court, 1982).
Lemoine v. Brice Building Co. 465 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
King v. American Motorist Insurance Co. 464 So. 2d 4 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Thibodeaux v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. 454 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
and Stracener v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, for the proposition that this language represents a finding of partial disability.
Chapman v. Home Indem. Co. 442 So. 2d 1388 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Fielder v. Triple S. Masonry 438 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
in which it was stated: The statute does not explicate the relationship between the specific loss schedule and the total and partial disability provisions.
Bernard v. Merit Drilling Co. 434 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Stracener v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
Culp v. Belden Corp. 432 So. 2d 847 La. 1983
Arvie v. Oilfield Construction Co. 428 So. 2d 1297 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
has recently stated: The statute does not explicate the relationship between the specific loss schedule and the total and partial disability provisions.
Andrews v. Pine Hill Wood Co. 426 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
The grant of compensation benefits, where a claimant is entitled to receive benefits for both a permanent partial disability and a specific schedule loss
Patin v. Continental Cas. Co. 424 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Daly v. L.E. Myers Construction Co. 424 So. 2d 1024 La. 1982
See Jacks v. Banister Pipelines America, et al.
Stracener v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. 420 So. 2d 1101 La. 1982
recently decided by this court, is dispositive of this issue.
Daly v. LE Myers Const. Co. 419 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982