Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hammond v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York, 419 So. 2d 829.

101 citing documents.

Woods v. Borden's Perkins Div. 610 So. 2d 219 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
McKay v. Assured Inspection Management, Inc. 588 So. 2d 729 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Austin v. Howard Discount Stores, Inc. 569 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Hammond v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, Duncan v. State, DOTD, (La.App.
Allen v. City Wholesale Liquor Co. 563 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Holmes v. International Paper Co. 559 So. 2d 970 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Hammond v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N.Y., (La.
Myers v. Stone Container, Inc. 556 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Hammond v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N.Y., (La.
Duncan v. STATE, DOTD 556 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Co. of New York, (La.App.
Toth v. Ensco Environmental Services, Inc. 546 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Walton v. Normandy Village Homes Association, Inc., supra ; Hammond v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, Haughton v. Fireman's Fund American Ins.
Stutes v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co. 528 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Co. of New York, ” We have carefully examined the record in this case.
Menendez v. Continental Ins. Co. 515 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Hammond v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York
Gobert v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 509 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Hughes v. Royal Globe Ins. Co. 496 So. 2d 1241 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Hammond v. Fidelity & Cos. Co. of New York
Youngblood v. Rotor Aids, Inc. 491 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
It is usually the ultimate fact to be found by the court, based on all the credible evidence.” Hammond v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York
Sims v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 491 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
In his reasons for judgment, the trial judge expressed his reliance upon and reference to our Supreme Court’s decision in Hammond v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York
Foster v. Chambers Construction Co. 489 So. 2d 1311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Hammond v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York
Richard v. A-1 Industries, Inc. 489 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Co. of New York, and Nash v. Ewing Timber, Inc., (La.App.
Jolibois v. Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co. 486 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Hammond v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, Guidry v. Sline Industrial Painters, Inc., supra .
Henry v. Simmons Family Investments, Inc. 486 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Boren v. Louisiana Pacific Corp. 486 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Mott v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 486 So. 2d 112 La. 1986
Co. of New York, Curtis, supra .
Stevenson v. Bolton Co., Inc. 484 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Fontenot v. G.L. Manuel Conoco, Co. 482 So. 2d 1041 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Savoie v. Fire Protection Dist. No. 1 483 So. 2d 1041 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Co. of New York, (a case in which the author of this opinion was the trial judge), plaintiff seriously bruised his upper left arm in the spokes of a steering wheel of a truck when the vehicle dropped into a hole.
Bridges v. Hood Motor Co., Inc. 477 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
See Hammond v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, citing Small, Gafing at at Thing Called Cause: Medico-Legal Conflicts in the Concept of Causation.
Walton v. Normandy Village Homes Ass'n, Inc. 475 So. 2d 320 La. 1985
Venable v. Rawlings, Inc. 471 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Sanchez v. Viccinelli Sheet Metal & Roofing Co. 473 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
The Supreme Court, in Hammond v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, after stating the above burden of proof requirement, elaborated, in pertinent part, as follows: ...
Droddy v. Cliff's Drilling, Inc. 471 So. 2d 223 La. 1985
Chaney v. Harvest Manor Nursing Home 468 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Hammond v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York
James v. Celotex Corp. 461 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
The rules relative to causation are set forth in Hammond v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, a case involving a trauma to plaintiff’s arm which ultimately resulted in a cancerous tumor growth.
Walton v. Normandy Village Homes Ass'n 460 So. 2d 1166 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Co. of New York, and Guillory v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar.
Comeaux v. Martin Mills, Inc. 457 So. 2d 253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Higgins v. State, Department of Health & Human Resources 458 So. 2d 951 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Hammond v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York [ (La.
Fagan v. Delta Steel & Construction Co. 449 So. 2d 1143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
As recently stated by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Hammond v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, : “The fact that a condition is preexisting does not preclude recovery for the disabled employee; the employer takes the *1146 employee as he is, and the fact that the disease alone might have disabled the employee in its ordinary course of progress is not the inquiry.
Blades v. Davis 446 So. 2d 958 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Co. of New York, Guillory, supra; Gipson v. Dresser Indus.
Thornell v. Payne & Keller, Inc. 442 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Hammond v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, (La.App.
Martin v. Pala, Inc. 441 So. 2d 205 La. 1983
The jurisprudential “presumption” applied by the majority of the court in Hammond v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. oí New York, would not be applicable here as the chain of causation was broken by the plaintiff’s full recovery and his further disability thereafter was not work related.
Lennix v. St. Charles Grain Elevator Co. 439 So. 2d 1249 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
See, Hammond v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York
Pennington v. Reading & Bates Construction Co. 432 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Nash v. Ewing Timber, Inc. 431 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Hammond v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York
Beauclair v. Rockwood Insurance 430 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Co., ” ****** Similarly, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: “The plaintiff-employee in a workmen’s compensation case bears the burden of establishing the causal connection between the disability and the employment accident by a reasonable preponderance of the evidence.
Martin v. Pala, Inc. 439 So. 2d 1094 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and awarded benefits, on the basis of similar reasoning, in Hammond v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York
Shatoska v. Intern. Grain Transfer, Inc. 430 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Hammond v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York
Celestin v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 430 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Co. of New York, : "The plaintiff-employee in a workmen's compensation case bears the burden of establishing the causal connection between the disability and the employment accident by a reasonable preponderance of the evidence.
Thum v. MRO Services Co., Inc. 430 So. 2d 1298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Adam v. Southern Tours, Inc. 431 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Crocker v. Home Insurance Co. 428 So. 2d 1280 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
In fairness to the District Court, we note that the instant case was decided on May 26, 1982, which was before the decisions reached in the following cases: Urbina v. Alois J. Binder Bakery, Inc., (La.App.
Chapman v. Belden Corp. 428 So. 2d 396 La. 1983
Hammond v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, Guidry v. Sline Industrial Painters, Inc., supra.
Hebert v. Lake Charles American Press 427 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
as follows: "The plaintiff-employee in a workmen's compensation case bears the burden of establishing the causal connection between the disability and the employment accident by a reasonable preponderance of the evidence.
Stevens v. Matlack, Inc. 420 So. 2d 1313 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
For the latest expression of the Louisiana Supreme Court on this issue of causation, when the injured worker is suffering from a pre-existing disease, see Hammond v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York