Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Martin v. East Jefferson General Hosp., 582 So. 2d 1272.

229 citing documents.

Hebert v. Podiatry Ins. Co. of America 688 So. 2d 1107 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Shahine v. State Univ. Med. Center 680 So. 2d 1352 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
the Supreme Court outlined the burden of proof and appellate standard of review in such cases as follows: "In a medical malpractice action against a physician, the plaintiff carries a two-fold burden of proof.
Cox v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 680 So. 2d 1309 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
*1317 the Supreme Court outlined the burden of proof and appellate standard of review in such cases as follows: "In a medical malpractice action against a physician, the plaintiff carries a two-fold burden of proof.
LeBlanc v. Grand Isle Shipyard, Inc. 676 So. 2d 1157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Harris v. Bronco Construction Company, 644 So.2d at 807 ; Cheramie v. Horst, 93-1168 (La.App.
Augustus v. St. Mary Parish School Bd. 676 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Harris v. Bronco Construction Company, 644 So.2d at 807 ; Cheramie v. Horst, 93-1168 (La.App.
Boyle v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF LA. STATE UNIV. & AGRIC. & MECHANICAL COLLEGE 672 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Hosp., Harris v. Bronco Constr.
Smith v. State Dept. of Health & Hosp. 676 So. 2d 543 La. 1996
Wells v. Lurate 674 So. 2d 1059 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
May v. Jones 675 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Gordon v. Louisiana State University Board of Supervisors 669 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Gordon v. LSU BD. OF SUP'RS 669 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Roberts v. Cox 669 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Morris v. Ferriss 669 So. 2d 1316 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Seal v. Bogalusa Community Medical Center 665 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
the Supreme Court stated: [T]he plaintiff need only prove that the defendant's malpractice resulted in the patient's loss of a chance of survival, and that the plaintiff need not shoulder the `unreasonable burden' of proving that the patient would have survived if properly treated.
Smith v. Bundrick 663 So. 2d 554 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Goodliffe v. Parish Anesthesia Associates 663 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Hosp., Gamino v. Lakeside Hosp., 94-727, (La.App.
Ragas v. Dewey 663 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
the Louisiana Supreme Court succinctly set forth the standard of proof required to prove malpractice, as follows: In a medical malpractice action against a physician, the plaintiff carries a two-fold burden of proof.
Brown on Behalf of Brown v. Gen. Motors Corp. 662 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Triche v. Regional Elec. & Const., Inc. 671 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Harris v. Bronco Construction Company, 644 So.2d at 807 ; Cheramie v. Horst, 93-1168, p. 5 (La.App.
St. Charles Parish School Board v. P & L Investment Corp. 662 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
We note that as a reviewing court, we are bound to follow the clearly erroneous/mani *52 when considering the factual findings made by the trial court: ...
Donaldson v. Sanders 661 So. 2d 1010 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Hastings v. Baton Rouge Gen.
Russo v. Bratton 657 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Taylor v. American Laundry MacHinery, Inc. 658 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
In Re Medical Review Panel 657 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Smith v. Lincoln General Hosp. 658 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Barre v. Nadell 657 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Jackson v. STATE THROUGH CHARITY HOSP. 655 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
the Supreme Court outlined the burden of proof and appellate standard of review in such cases as follows: In a medical malpractice action against a physician, the plaintiff carries a two-fold burden of proof.
Seagers v. Pailet 656 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Rowsey v. Jones 655 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Robertson v. Hospital Corp. of America 653 So. 2d 1265 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Smith v. State 647 So. 2d 653 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
1990); Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Dept. Ambulance Serv., 93-3099, p. 3 (La.
Mitchell v. State Farm 652 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Gamino v. Lakeside Hosp. 652 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Smith v. State Dept. of Health & Hosp. 650 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Fraser v. Ochsner Foundation Hosp. 648 So. 2d 1081 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
the Louisiana Supreme Court outlined the burden of proof and appellate standard of review as follows: In a medical malpractice action against a physician, the plaintiff carries a two-fold burden of proof.
Todd v. Sauls 647 So. 2d 1366 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Elaborating on this statute, 1278 (La.1991), stated: "In a medical malpractice action against a physician, the plaintiff carries a two-fold burden of proof.
Mahfouz v. Xanar, Inc. 646 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:2794
Pfiffner v. Correa 643 So. 2d 1228 La. 1994
Depp v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 645 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Harris v. Bronco Const. Co. 644 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Hosp., Cheramie v. Horst, 93-1168 (La.App.
Richard v. Wijayasuriya 645 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Alello v. Smith 641 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Amb. Serv. 639 So. 2d 216 La. 1994
we held that the plaintiff did not have to shoulder the burden of proving that the physician's malpractice was the cause in fact of the patient's death, but rather that the physician's malpractice resulted in loss of chance of survival.
Pfiffner v. Correa 640 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Snia v. United Medical Center 637 So. 2d 1290 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Cheramie v. Horst 637 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Ard v. East Jefferson General Hosp. 636 So. 2d 1042 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Steptoe v. Lallie Kemp Hosp. 634 So. 2d 331 La. 1994
Hosp., 498 So.2d.713 (La.1986)
Juneau v. Louisiana Indemnity Insurance Co. 634 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
In such a circumstance, which states that where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the fact finder’s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.
Atkinson v. Celotex Corp. 633 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
In such a circumstance, which states that where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the fact finder's choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.