Cited by

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

834 citing documents.

Courville v. Omni Drilling 676 So. 2d 861 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Inc., Frelow v. Mills, 94-799 (La.App.
Scott v. Town of Jonesville 676 So. 2d 1196 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
The Louisiana Supreme Court in Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., stated that the hearing officer's determination on credibility and whether a worker has discharged his burden of proof are not to be disturbed on review unless clearly wrong or where manifest error is shown.
Augustus v. St. Mary Parish School Bd. 676 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., Smith v. Grand Isle Shipyard, 95-0259 p. 1 (La.App.
Bonded Freight, Inc. v. Bowens 676 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Montana v. City of New Orleans 682 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Vernon, 642 So.2d at 689
Guillory v. St. Jude Medical Center 675 So. 2d 1198 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza 674 So. 2d 947 La. 1996
Henderson v. Pavy 688 So. 2d 1048 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., (La.
Rideaux v. Franklin Nursing Home 688 So. 2d 1053 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Lucius v. HB Zachry Co. 673 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Boyette v. Riverwood International 674 So. 2d 1102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Estate of Bell v. Timber 675 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Fox v. National Gypsum, Inc. 673 So. 2d 1223 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
Bruno v. Harbert Int'l, Inc., Ball v. Dawsey Corp., 95-669 (La.
Malbrue v. St. Landry Parish School Bd. 673 So. 2d 1157 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Inc., Frelow v. Mills, 94-799 (La.App.
Jacques v. Calcasieu Parish School Board 672 So. 2d 1145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Zachary v. Senior Village Nursing Home 671 So. 2d 1146 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Inc., Frelow v. Mills, 94-799 (La.App.
Boyette v. Riverwood International 669 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Because we are not dealing with provisions setting forth which injuries are compensable under the workers’ compensation scheme or what constitutes an “accident” under the workers’ compensation scheme, the general rule that the governing law in a compensation action is that which was in effect at the time of the alleged injury, enunciated in such cases as Bruno v. Harbert Int’l., Inc., Nelson v. Roadway Express, Inc., and Smith v. Exxon Chem.
Chitman v. Davison Trucking 669 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Jones v. AT & T 669 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Franks v. Air Conditioning Appliance Corp. 670 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., (La.
Custis v. Whitaker Const. 670 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
1/14/94); ; Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc.
Shortt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 670 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Carrier v. Debarge's College Junction 673 So. 2d 1043 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
23:1031; Bruno v. Harbert Intern., Inc.
Cormier v. Resthaven Nursing Home 670 So. 2d 233 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Hollingsworth v. E. Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd. 666 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
George v. M & G Testing and Services, Inc. 663 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Helaire v. Louisiana School for Math, Science & Arts 664 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., (La.
French v. Manpower Temporary Services 664 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
sulted from an accident, if before the accident the injured person was in good health, but commencing Uwith the accident the symptoms of the disabling condition appear and continuously manifest themselves afterwards, providing that the medical evidence shows there to be a reasonable possibility of causal connection between the accident and the disabling condition.” (citing West [v. Bayou Vista Manor ], 371 So.2d [1146] at 1149 [La.1979] ).
Charles v. South Cent. Industries 667 So. 2d 1129 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Inc., Fruge v. Gravity Drainage Dist.
Ball v. Dawsey Corp. 665 So. 2d 566 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Rideaux v. Franklin Nursing Home 664 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Bruno v. Harbert Intern., Inc.
East v. Crying Eagle Const. 664 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
23:1031(A), as quoted in Bruno v. Harbert Intern., Inc., (emphasis in original).
Martin v. Elmwood Medical Center 665 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Blanchard v. Federal Exp. Corp. 665 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
3/11/94), ; Bruno v. Harbert Int'l, Inc., (La.
Ramsey v. Cash and Carry Foods, Inc. 664 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Bruno v. Harbert International Inc., et al
Simpson v. Jeanerette Sugar Co. 667 So. 2d 1087 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Stevens v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 663 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Smith v. Grand Isle Shipyard 671 So. 2d 415 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., (La.
Fontenette v. McDermott, Inc. 694 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc.
Hammons v. ABB CE SERVICES, INC. 671 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Bruce v. Ampacet Corp. 663 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc.
Arnold v. Cavanaugh Aviation 663 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
The recent case of Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., established the following test for proving unwit-nessed accidents: A worker’s testimony alone may be sufficient to discharge this burden of proof, provided two elements are satisfied: (1) no other evidence discredits or casts serious doubt upon the worker’s version of the incident; and (2) the worker’s testi
Dibler v. Highland Clinic 661 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
1/14/94), ; Bruno v. Harbert Intern., Inc.
Wilson v. Bewley's Furniture Co. 661 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Garrett v. Seventh Ward General Hosp. 660 So. 2d 841 La. 1995
Bruno v. Harbert Int'l, Inc.
Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co. 660 So. 2d 7 La. 1995
Because we are not dealing with provisions setting forth which injuries are compensable under the workers' compensation scheme or what constitutes an "accident" under the workers' compensation scheme, the general rule that the governing law in a compensation action is that which was in effect at the time of the alleged injury, enunciated in such cases as Bruno v. Harbert Int'l, Inc., (La.
Howell v. Service Merchandise Co., Inc. 663 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Garner v. Sheats & Frazier 663 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
See also Bruno v. Harbert International, Inc., et al.
Roberts v. BE & K CONST. CO. 658 So. 2d 314 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Comeaux v. Sam Broussard Trucking 657 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995