Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Williams v. Kushner, 549 So. 2d 294.

39 citing documents.

Laureen Olson v. Paul M. Toce, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Olson v. Toce 222 So. 3d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Watkins v. Lake Charles Memorial Hospital 144 So. 3d 944 La. 2014
See Kelty v. Brumfield, 93-1142 (La.2/25/94)
Douglas v. Children's Hospital 69 So. 3d 434 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
4th Cir.1988), amended and affd where this Court balanced the state’s interests against the discrimination and determined l^that the legislative classifications were not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Reed v. St. Charles General Hospital 11 So. 3d 1138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
the Louisiana Supreme Court noted: The legislature had the power to establish the fund and provide a supplemental recovery for those more seriously injured by medical malpractice....
Tipton v. Campbell 996 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
MJ Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 998 So. 2d 16 La. 2008
4 Cir.1988), amended and affirmed, (La.
Susan Arrington, Etc. v. Er Physicians Group, Apmc La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Arrington v. ER PHYSICIANS GROUP, APMC. 940 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Randy Hanks v. Dr. A. Kent Seale La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
“The fund is not a negligent party and does not have the status of an Article 2315 defendant.” While the patient’s [sic] compensation fund is not a party defendant, it is a third party with an interest in the proceedings when damages exceed $100,000.
Hanks v. Seale 872 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
“The fund is not a negligent party and does not have the status of an Article 2315 defendant.” While the patient’s [sic] compensation fund is not a party defendant, it is a third party with an interest in the proceedings when damages exceed $100,000.
LeRay v. Bartholomew 871 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
King v. Doctor's Hosp. of Opelousas 817 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Miller v. Southern Baptist Hosp. 806 So. 2d 10 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
compels us to find that the monetary statutory limitation of $500,000 set forth in La.
Progressive SEC. Ins. Co. v. Foster 711 So. 2d 675 La. 1998
4 Cir.1988), amended and affirmed
McCrory v. JEFFERSON PARISH HOSP. SERV. 686 So. 2d 1060 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
Williams v. Mumphrey 668 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
4th Cir.1988), amended and affirmed, (La.
Palmer v. Blue Water Marine Catering, Inc. 663 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
4th Cir.1988), amended and affirmed
Moody v. United Nat. Ins. Co. 657 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
in which the supreme court held there was an unconstitutional anomaly between Act 435 of 1984, which allowed recovery of future medical costs on private sector claims filed on or after September 1, 1984, and Act 239 of 1985, which allowed such recovery as to malpractice claims against the state and applied
Dupre v. City of New Orleans ex rel. New Orleans Fire Department 648 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Shortly | (¡thereafter, the Supreme Court, ruled that future medical expenses were excluded from the limitation.
Todd v. Sauls 647 So. 2d 1366 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
and does not comport with the Third Circuit's interpretation of LSA-R.S.
Descant v. Adm'rs of Tulane Educ. Fund 639 So. 2d 246 La. 1994
2338 , 124 L.Ed.2d 249 (1993); -308 (La.1989) (Dixon, C.J., dissenting)
Turner v. Massiah 641 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Kelty v. Brumfield 633 So. 2d 1210 La. 1994
State v. Neisler 633 So. 2d 1224 La. 1994
Thomas v. Insurance Corp. of America 633 So. 2d 136 La. 1994
Descant v. Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund 627 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Chief Justice Dixon, dissenting at 305-308; .
LeBlanc v. Meza 620 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Rodriguez v. LOUISIANA MEDICAL MUT. INS. CO. 620 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
Rodriguez v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co. 620 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
“The fund is not a negligent party and does not have the status of an Article 2315 defendant.”
Butler v. Flint Goodrich Hosp. of Dillard Univ. 607 So. 2d 517 La. 1992
amended and affirmed the court of appeal opinion without a definitive holding on the constitutional issue.
Schwarzenburg v. Jackson 600 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
Galloway v. Baton Rouge General Hosp. 602 So. 2d 1003 La. 1992
While the $400,000 limit on recovery from the statutorily-created PCF is without "constitutional infirmity", Williams v. Kushner (La.
Mumphrey v. Gessner 581 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
Sons v. INLAND MARINE SERVICE INC. 577 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
4th Cir.1988), amended and affirmed
Ewing v. Aubert 566 So. 2d 616 La. 1990
Stuka v. Fleming 561 So. 2d 1371 La. 1990
[7] The constitutionality of the $500,000
Kelty v. Brumfield 559 So. 2d 907 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
affirmed this court's decision as it related to the constitutionality of the $500,000.00 limit on recovery, but further ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to future medical expenses.
Bourgeois v. Ochsner Foundation Hospital & Clinic 550 So. 2d 1229 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Prince A. Williams v. Jack Kushner, et al., LaMark v. NME Hospitals, Inc., supra.