Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Koslowski v. Sanchez, 576 So. 2d 470.

35 citing documents.

Reed v. St. Charles General Hospital 11 So. 3d 1138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
overruled on other grounds, Felix v. St.
Sharon Boxie v. Dr. Dwight Lemoine La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Boxie v. Lemoine 967 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Hanks v. Seale 904 So. 2d 662 La. 2005
In reaching its decision, overruled in part by Russo v. Vasquez, 94-2407 (La.1/17/95), , for the proposition that the doctors' payments of $100,000 pursuant to the district court's judgment established their liability.
Randy Hanks v. Dr. A. Kent Seale La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
s record, constitutes manifest error, and mandates that the Judgment in this matter be reversed.” The issue of whether the PCF can contest liability when a health care provider has paid its policy limits subsequent to the rendering of a judgment based on a jury 3
Hanks v. Seale 872 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
s verdict of liability in this case is unreasonable on this record, constitutes manifest error, and mandates that the Judgment in this matter be reversed.” The issue of whether the PCF can contest liability when a health care provider has paid its policy limits subsequent to the rendering of a judgment based on a jury 14
Richard McNabb v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company and Dr. Clinton E. Hart La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
by “the trial court at any time, with or without notice, on its own motion or on motion of any party; (1) To alter the phraseology of the judgment, but not the substance; or (2) To correct errors of calculation.” 8 which also involved a settlement post-trial.
McNabb v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance 858 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
which also involved a settlement post-trial.
King v. Doctor's Hosp. of Opelousas 817 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
overruled in part on other grounds, Russo v. Vasquez, 94-2407 (La.1/17/95), .
Evans v. Nogues 775 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
the Supreme Court sustained an award of $250,000.00; but in that case the plaintiff was not faced with the *480 prospect of repeated surgical procedures and the physical suffering was limited more to numbness rather than pain.
Ceasar v. Barry 772 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
the supreme court explained this procedure: Liability under the Medical Malpractice Act is based on the initial $100,000 paid by the health care provider or its insurer, pursuant to judgment, settlement or arbitration.
Bowers v. Liuzza 769 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
In support of her position, 1 .
Thrash v. Maerhofer 745 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Furthennore, in a previous case, the supreme court explained that “[t]he fund cannot contest liability when there is a binding settlement for $100,000 by the health care provider, either before or after trial.”
Graham v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 699 So. 2d 365 La. 1997
Magos v. Feerick 690 So. 2d 812 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
App. 1 Cir.1990), reversed on other grounds, (citing McLean, ).
Gauthreaux v. Trosclair 676 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
2/28/94), ; (overruled on other grounds by Russo v. Vasquez, *216 94-2407, p. 9 (La.
Pendleton v. Barrett 675 So. 2d 720 La. 1996
the issue was whether plaintiff had reached the requisite settlement under the Medical Malpractice Act to trigger access to the PCF because plaintiff only received $93,500 after costs of jury and medical review panel were deducted from plaintiff's recovery.
Wartell v. Woman's & Children's Hosp. 676 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
513 , 112 L.Ed.2d 525 (1990); (La.
Herpin v. Witherspoon 664 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
1 Cir.1990), reversed on other grounds
Graham v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 662 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
513 , 112 L.Ed.2d 525 (1990); (La.
Doe v. Doe 657 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
2/28/94) , Koslowski v. Sanchez, D.D.S., overruled on other grounds, Russo v. Vasquez, 94-2407 (La.
Trahan v. McManus 653 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
40:1299.44(C)(5), Stuka, supra, and the other cases cited by appellants, (La.
Horil v. Scheinhorn 653 So. 2d 637 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
2338 , 124 L.Ed.2d 249 (1993); and the cases cited therein.
Russo v. Vasquez 648 So. 2d 879 La. 1995
513 , 112 L.Ed.2d 525 (1990) the trial court granted Mrs. Russo's motion and ordered several paragraphs of the PCF's answer stricken from the record.
Lewis v. State 642 So. 2d 260 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Thomas v. Insurance Corp. of America 633 So. 2d 136 La. 1994
Russo v. Vasquez 631 So. 2d 457 La. 1994
Thomas v. Insurance Corp. of America 621 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Stuka v. Fleming, supra; (La.App.
Rodriguez v. LOUISIANA MEDICAL MUT. INS. CO. 620 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
the court explained, as follows: The Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act contemplates only one party defendant, the health care provider.
Rodriguez v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co. 620 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
the court explained, as follows: The Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act contemplates only one party defendant, the health care provider.
Payne v. New Orleans General Hosp. 611 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Butler v. Flint Goodrich Hosp. of Dillard Univ. 607 So. 2d 517 La. 1992
Schwarzenburg v. Jackson 600 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
the Supreme Court stated as follows: The Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act contemplates only one party defendant, the health care provider.
Boyd v. Louisiana Medical Mut. Ins. Co. 593 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
1st Cir.1990) rev'd on other grounds, where this court held that a less than one in 5,000,000 chance of parathesia would not be a determining factor to a reasonable patient.
Mumphrey v. Gessner 581 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991