Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Mundy v. Dept. of Health & Human Resources, 593 So. 2d 346.

88 citing documents.

Ziegler v. Bagby Construction/LWCC 760 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
O'REGAN v. Preferred Enterprises, Inc. 758 So. 2d 124 La. 2000
Mundy v. Department of Health & Human Resources
Clement v. Dynasty Transp. 756 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
[3] Mundy v. Department of Health & Human Resources
Jordan v. Central Management Co. 745 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Mundy v. Department of Health & Human Resources
O'REGAN v. Preferred Enterprises, Inc. 737 So. 2d 31 La. 1999
13 H. ALSTON JOHNSTON, LOUISIANA CIVIL LAW *39 TREATISE, WORKERS' COMPENSATION § 141 (3d ed.1994); see also Mundy v. Dept. of Health & Human Resources
Pitts v. Helmrich & Payne Drilling 739 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Mundy v. Department of Health & Human Resources, (La.
Hughes v. Olive Garden Italian Restaurant 731 So. 2d 1076 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Mundy was injured while in the public area, an elevator, of her employer's premises.
Davis v. Specialty Diving, Inc. 740 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Hall v. House, Golden, Kingsmill & Riess 717 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
The Louisiana Supreme Court, stated at page 350: “An exception, known as the threshold doctrine, has been recognized when an accident occurs at a place with an unusually hazardous travel risk which is immediately adjacent to, but not on, the employer’s premises.
Scott v. Smith 714 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Washington v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 708 So. 2d 1254 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Bostwick v. MAPP Industries, Inc. 707 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
In Mundy v. Dept. Of Health & Human Resources, the Court had expounded on the meaning of the two requirements stating: An accident occurs in the course of employment when the employee sustains an injury while actively engaged in the performance of his duties during working hours, either on the employer's premises or at other places where employment activ
Keith v. Gelco Corp. 705 So. 2d 244 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Tucker v. Northeast Louisiana Tree Service, supra .
Bolton v. Tulane University of Louisiana 692 So. 2d 1113 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Wilson v. City of Shreveport 682 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Tomas v. Conco Food Distributors 666 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
[4] : "When the employer seeks to avail itself of tort immunity under Section 1032, the employer has the burden of proving entitlement to immunity."
Tucker v. Northeast Louisiana Tree Service 665 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Blouin v. Shell Oil Co. 656 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Hebert v. Jeffrey 653 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Mitchell v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 653 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Mundy v. Dept. of Health & Human Resources
Guillory v. Interstate Gas Station 653 So. 2d 1152 La. 1995
Mundy v. Dept. of Health & Human Resources, See 1 Arthur Larson, Workmen's Compensation, § 7.00 (1994).
May v. SISTERS OF CHARITY OF INCARNATE WORD 651 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Pappas v. Marine Spill Response Corp. 650 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
1986) (denial of compensation affirmed when ‘course of employment’ showing was weak because employee had deviated from employment task to attempt reconciliation with a neighbor who was jealous over the employee’s |5attention to the neighbor’s girlfriend, and the neighbor’s shooting of the employee provided a weak ‘arising out of employment’ showing).” -50 (La.1992).
Anderson v. Mamgano 652 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
the following criteria are |3used to determine the issue of whether an accident occurs in the course of and arises out of the employment: An accident occurs in the course of employment when the employee sustains an injury while actively engaged in the performance of his duties during working hours, either o
Francisco v. Harris Management Co. 643 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Dupre v. Exxon Pipeline Co. 638 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
1 Cir.1973), writ denied, Mundy v. Dept. of Health & Human Resources
Bosse v. Westinghouse Elec., Inc. 637 So. 2d 1157 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Weber v. State 635 So. 2d 188 La. 1994
Mundy v. Department of Health & Human Resources
Kennington v. H. Blume Johnson, Inc. 632 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
23:1032; Mundy v. Dept. of Health & Human Resources, Jurls v. Lama Drilling Co., Inc., (La.
Ballard v. Lambert 624 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
The recent case of Mundy v. Dept. of Health & Human Resources, contains a detailed discussion of the issues of employers’ tort immunity under LSA-R.S.
Colletti v. Port Noma, Ltd. 625 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Mundy v. Dept. of Health & Human Resources
Mundy v. Dept. of Health & Human Res. 620 So. 2d 811 La. 1993
Benoit v. Capitol Mfg. Co. 617 So. 2d 477 La. 1993
Compare Mundy v. Dept. of Health & Human Resources, where the employee, en route to work, had not begun her employment duties under the supervision and control of her employer.
Mundy v. DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN RES. 609 So. 2d 909 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT This appeal has been remanded to this Court pursuant to the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Jenera Mundy v. The Department of Health and Human Resources, et al., (1992), for a review of the trial court's findings on the issues of negligence and quantum.
Sims v. Browning Ferris Industries, Inc. 613 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Hanewinckel v. ST. PAUL'S PROP. & LIABILITY INSURANCE, CO. 611 So. 2d 174 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
We, like the district judge
Stewart v. Louisiana Plant Service Inc. 611 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Rush v. Employers Nat. Ins. Co. 598 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
4th Cir. 1991), reversed on other grounds, Schmolke v. Krauss Company, Ltd., (La.App.