Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bruno v. Harbert Intern. Inc., 593 So. 2d 357.

834 citing documents.

Dufrene v. Imperial Fire and Cas. Ins. Co. 866 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
5 Cir. 6/19/03) , , citing; Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., et al.
Terrell G. Istre v. International Maintenance Co., LLP La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
23:1021(1) as “an unexpected or unforseen actual, identifiable, precipitous event happening suddenly or violently, with or without human fault, and directly producing at the time objective findings of an injury which is more than simply a gradual deterioration or progressive degeneration.” InBruno v. Harbert International, Inc., (citations omitted), the supreme court explained the claimant’s burden of establishing an accident as follows: [T]he plaintiff-worker in a compensation action has the bu
Kathy Tucker v. Security Industrial La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Bruno v. Harbert Int’l, Inc.
Tucker v. Security Industrial Insurance 865 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Bruno v. Harbert Int'l, Inc.
Istre v. International Maintenance Co. 865 So. 2d 963 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
23:1021(1) as “an unexpected or unforseen actual, identifiable, precipitous event happening suddenly or violently, with or without human fault, and directly producing at the time objective findings of an injury which is more than simply a gradual deterioration or progressive degeneration.” In Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., (citations omitted), the supreme court explained the claimant’s burden of establishing an accident as follows: *967 [T]he plaintiff-worker in a compensation action has
Harris v. Casino Magic 865 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc.
Linda Dronet v. E-Z Mart La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc.
Mays v. Cross Roofing & Construction 862 So. 2d 1193 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc.
Longoria v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 862 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., supra .
Joseph R. Leger v. Grey Wolf Drilling Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
In Bruno v. Harbert International, Incorporated, (La.1992), the supreme court observed that a worker’s testimony, alone, may be sufficient to discharge the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Leger v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co. 861 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
In Bruno v. Harbert International, Incorporated, , (La.1992), the supreme court observed that a worker's testimony, alone, may be sufficient to discharge the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Simmons v. Associated Hospital Services, Inc. 862 So. 2d 1043 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Further, “[t]he trial court’s determinations as to whether the worker’s testimony is credible and whether the worker has discharged his burden of proof are factual determinations not to be disturbed on review unless clearly wrong or absent a showing of manifest error.” Bruno v. Harbert Int’l., Inc.
Canto v. Frank's Supervalue 862 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc.
Hollins v. People Works 861 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Hall v. JE Merit Constructors, Inc. 861 So. 2d 224 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc.
Hartman v. Wal-Mart 868 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Wilbert Arnold v. Wal-Mart La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
In Bruno v. Harbert Int'l, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the law in effect at the time of the injury governs an employee’s compensation claim.
Shannon Douglas v. Grey Wolf Drilling La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
However, Provost was based upon a line of cases that the supreme court expressly repudiated in Bruno v. Harbert International Inc ., (emphasis added): [W]e find the appellate court’s reliance on the fact that plaintiff was the only witness entirely misplaced.
Arnold v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 858 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
In Bruno v. Harbert Int'l, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the law in effect at the time of the injury governs an employee's compensation claim.
Douglas v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co. 858 So. 2d 830 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
However, Provost was based upon a (La.
Richard Sterling v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1031 requires a workers’ compensation claimant to initially establish “personal injury by accident out of and in the course of his employment.” Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc.
Sterling v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co. 856 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Bruno v. Harbert International, *128 Inc.
Cousin v. Slidell Memorial Hospital 857 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
I DISCUSSION Standard of Review Cousin first argues that although a trial court’s determination that a work-related accident did not occur is normally subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of review, Bruno v. Harbert Int’l, Inc., under Bolton v. B E & K Construction, 01-0486 (La.App.
Authement v. Wal-Mart 857 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Ware v. Allen Parish School Bd. 854 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Bruno v. Harbert Int'l, Inc.
Dunaway v. Lakeview Regional Medical Center 859 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Carter v. Lake View Regional Medical Center 859 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc.
Dale v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 859 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc.
Kemp v. East Baton Rouge City Parish 858 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Penn v. Options, Inc. 858 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Brister v. Pizza Inn 859 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Fite v. Louisiana Title Co. 852 So. 2d 983 La. 2003
Followed Derrick v. YAMAHA POWER SPORTS 850 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., et al.
Shamburger v. Ribbeck Const. Co. 847 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Bruno v. Harbert *769 Int'l Inc., Dore v. Sydran Food Services II, L.P., 01-728 (La.App.
Pauley v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 847 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Wong v. ConAgra Poultry Co. 845 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
The supreme court discussed the issue of a worker’s -61 (La.1992): Louisiana courts consistently have interpreted the work-related accident requirement liberally.
Foy-Watson v. General Motors Corp. 847 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., (La.
Hurst v. Sanderson Farms, Inc. 846 So. 2d 954 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Thomas v. Wal-Mart 849 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Raymond v. TNT Sandblasting & Painting, Inc. 843 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Occurrence of Accident “[T]he plaintiff-worker in a compensation action has the burden of establishing a work-related accident by a preponderance of the evidence.” Bruno v. Harbert Int’l Inc., La.R.S.
Allen v. EXHIBITION HALL AUTHORITY 842 So. 2d 373 La. 2003
See, Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc.
Abadie v. MARSIGLIA CONST. CO. 845 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Dressel v. Topeka Transfer & Storage 844 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Issa v. LL & G CONST., INC. 844 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Bodiford v. Robinson Bros. Lincoln Mercury 844 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Hurst v. Railserve, Inc. 844 So. 2d 342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Clairain v. Wal-Mart Supercenter 0541 844 So. 2d 348 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
See Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc.
McCall v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 846 So. 2d 832 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Flick v. Fischer Environmental Services, Inc. 853 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Gonzales v. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. 844 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003