DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Ducote v. Albert, 521 So. 2d 399.

21 citing documents.

  • Dianne Bates v. Robert C. King La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    1 Cir. 9/17/04), -93 (emphasis added), the court explained how Louisiana repudiated the “dual capacity doctrine” as follows: Earlier, in connection with its review of a medical malpractice action, the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the “dual capacity doctrine.” the court held that under the circumstances set forth in that case, the workers’ compensation statute did not insulate a company doctor from liability based in tort because the doctor functioned simultaneously in two roles, each carrying
  • Bates v. King 915 So. 2d 1037 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    1 Cir. 9/17/04), -93 (emphasis added), the court explained how Louisiana repudiated the “dual capacity doctrine” as follows: Earlier, in connection with its review of a medical malpractice action, the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the “dual capacity doctrine.” the court held that under the circumstances set forth in that case, the workers’ compensation statute did not insulate a company doctor from liability based in tort because the doctor functioned simultaneously in two roles, each carrying
  • Dianne Bates v. Robert C. King La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    3 Cir. 8/21/96), : Apparently, in response to the Ducote [v. Albert, ] decision, the legislature amended La.R.S.
  • Bates v. King 899 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    3 Cir. 8/21/96) , : Apparently, in response to the Ducote [v. Albert, ] decision, the legislature amended La.
  • Jewell v. Haire 887 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    the court held that under *493 the circumstances set forth in that case, the workers' compensation statute did not insulate a company doctor from liability based in tort because the doctor functioned simultaneously in two roles, each carrying a different set of legal obligations.
  • Brown v. Connecticut General Life Insurance 793 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • Hesse v. Champ Service Line 707 So. 2d 1295 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    However, adopted the "dual capacity doctrine."
  • Moore v. St. Francis Cabrini Hosp. 679 So. 2d 943 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    However, the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the "dual capacity doctrine"
  • Leflore v. Coburn 665 So. 2d 1323 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • Billiot v. BP Oil Co. 645 So. 2d 604 La. 1994
    Act 454 of 1989 merely repeated the rule without change while adding a
  • Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of BR 646 So. 2d 905 La. 1994
    [this court employed a common law, hybrid form of the dual capacity doctrine to hold a company physician liable for breach of the duty he owed his patient as a medical professional].
  • Wright v. State 639 So. 2d 258 La. 1994
    A five-judge panel in a three-two decision reversed and granted summary judgment, which was legislatively overruled by La.
  • Distinguished Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. 631 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Pursuant to this well recognized concept, there is no reported case in this state where an employee has been allowed recovery under a
  • Rivere v. NPC Services, Inc. 625 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    DUAL CAPACITY It is plaintiffs’ position that even if NPC was the statutory employer of Mr. Riv-ere, NPC is liable under tort law pursuant to the “dual capacity” (La,1988).
  • Roberts v. Orpheum Corp. 610 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • Hebert v. ALLIED SIGNAL INC. 577 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    applied the dual capacity doctrine and held that though otherwise immune from liability under La.R.S.
  • Putzeys v. Schreiber 576 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • Seay v. Wilson 569 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    (J. Lemmon, concurring).
  • Criticized Nunez v. Canik 551 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY The “dual-capacity doctrine”
  • Deagracias v. Chandler 551 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    23:1032; and (2) defendant can be sued in its "dual capacity" as employer and manufacturer, (La.
  • Fuller v. US Aircraft Ins. Group 530 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    5th Cir.1987), aff'd holding that summary judgment is not a proper vehicle for determining a company doctor's status.