Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Butler v. Flint Goodrich Hosp. of Dillard Univ., 607 So. 2d 517.

48 citing documents.

Kathleen Welch and Carroll Dewayne Welch v. United Medical Healthwest-New Orleans L.L.C. and United Medical Healthcare Inc. La. 2025
of 5 Dillard University, (La.
Larry Bize, Sr. and Michelle R. Bize v. Malcolm Larvadain La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
10/19/92), and La.Const.
Bize v. Larvadain 263 So. 3d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
10/19/92), , 518, and La.Const.
Watson v. Woldenberg Village, Inc. 203 So. 3d 317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Terry Lee Johnson, Sr. v. Lynn Edward Foret, M.D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Johnson v. Foret 146 So. 3d 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Though Mr. Johnson’s injuries and pain and suffering may justify a substantial award, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Oliver v. Magnolia Clinic, 11-2132, 11-2139, 11-2142 (La.3/13/12), , cert.
Susan Arrington, Etc. v. Er Physician Group, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Arrington v. ER Physician Group, Inc. 110 So. 3d 193 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Arrington v. Galen-Med, Inc. 89 So. 3d 1159 La. 2012
Oliver v. MAGNOLIA CLINIC 85 So. 3d 39 La. 2012
Joe Oliver v. Magnolia Clinic La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
The State also argues, that the Act’s $500,000.00 limitation provides three benefits to the severely injured medical malpractice victim which serves as a quid pro quo–a reasonable alternative remedy–to offset the MMA’s discriminatory impact on the general damage claims of these victims and their families.
Oliver v. MAGNOLIA CLINIC 71 So. 3d 1170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The State also argues, that the Act’s $500,000.00 limitation provides three benefits to the severely injured medical malpractice victim which serves as a quid pro quo — a reasonable alternative remedy — to offset the MMA’s discriminatory impact on the general damage claims of these victims and their families.
Joe Oliver v. Magnolia Clinic La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
The State also argues, (La.
Oliver v. Magnolia Clinic 51 So. 3d 874 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
The State also argues, just as it did in Butler v. Flint Goodrich *883 Hosp., that the Act’s $500,000 limitation provides three benefits to the severely injured medical malpractice victim which serves as a quid pro quo — a reasonable alternative remedy — to offset the Act’s discriminatory impact on the general damage claims of these victims and their families.
Douglas v. Children's Hospital 69 So. 3d 434 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
of Dillard University, the plaintiffs claimed that the cap provision of the MMA violated the constitutional mandate of equal protection 15 , prohibition against arbitrary, |47capricious, or unreasonable discrimination because of physical condition 16 , and guaranty of an adequate remedy, administered without partiality for injury
Susan Arrington, Etc. v. Er Physicians Group, Apmc La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Arrington v. ER PHYSICIANS GROUP, APMC. 940 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Amy Robinson v. Allen Parish Police Jury La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
As we have observed on numerous occasions, the legislature enacted the Medical Malpractice Act in 1975 in response to a “perceived medical malpractice insurance ‘crisis.’” Hutchinson v. Patel, 93-2156 (La.5/23/94), [, cert.
Robinson v. Allen Parish Police Jury 918 So. 2d 535 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
As we have observed on numerous occasions, the legislature enacted the Medical Malpractice Act in 1975 in response to a "perceived medical malpractice insurance `crisis.'" Hutchinson v. Patel, 93-2156 (La.5/23/94), ; see also Butler v. Flint Goodrich *538 Hosp., (La.
Taylor v. Clement 897 So. 2d 909 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Monistere v. Engelhardt 896 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
Williamson v. HOSPITAL SERVICE OF JEFFERSON 888 So. 2d 782 La. 2004
As we have observed on numerous occasions, the legislature enacted the Medical Malpractice Act in 1975 in response to a "perceived medical malpractice insurance `crisis.'" Hutchinson v. Patel, 93-2156 (La.5/23/94), ; Galloway v. Baton Rouge Gen.
Ruiz v. Oniate 806 So. 2d 81 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Followed Miller v. Southern Baptist Hosp. 806 So. 2d 10 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Eusea 775 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Remet v. Martin 737 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Batson v. South Louisiana Medical Center 727 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
of Dillard University, *620 cert.
Conerly v. State 714 So. 2d 709 La. 1998
Of Dillard Univ., (Lemmon, J., dissenting), cert.
Williams v. State, Dept. of Health and Hospitals 703 So. 2d 579 La. 1997
Conerly v. State 690 So. 2d 980 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Hollingsworth v. Bowers 690 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Followed Levron v. State 673 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Turner v. Massiah 656 So. 2d 636 La. 1995
40:1299.42(B)(1) and (3)(b); cert.
Moody v. United Nat. Ins. Co. 657 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
The $500,000 which concluded, "Overall, the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act represents a reasonable but imperfect balance between the rights of victims and those of health care providers.
Jackson v. Dunlap 654 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Horil v. Scheinhorn 653 So. 2d 637 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
of Dillard University, cert.
Descant v. Adm'rs of Tulane Educ. Fund 639 So. 2d 246 La. 1994
Turner v. Massiah 641 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
As noted in the trial court's reasons for granting the summary judgment and holding that the Act was constitutional, the issue of whether a (La.
Hutchinson v. Patel 637 So. 2d 415 La. 1994
Galloway v. Baton Rouge Gen.
Descant v. Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund 627 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Chief Justice Dixon, dissenting at 305-308; .
Payne v. New Orleans General Hospital 627 So. 2d 221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
of Dillard University, certiorari denied by Butler v. Medley, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct.
Succession of Lauga 624 So. 2d 1156 La. 1993
[50] -27 (La.1992) (Dennis, J., dissenting) and Sibley, 477 So.2d at 1108 n. 24.
Chamberlain v. State, Through DOTD 624 So. 2d 874 La. 1993
We recently addressed the constitutionality of a similar statutory measure placing a cert.
Rodriguez v. Louisiana Medical Mut. Ins. Co. 618 So. 2d 390 La. 1993
Second, rehearing denied, November 25, 1992.
Thibodeau v. Mayor and Councilmen of Morgan City 619 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Deville v. Budd Const. Co. 617 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Although this is a very interesting issue, in which the court examined the constitutionality of the statutory limit on medical malpractice awards, LSA-R.S.
Talley v. Succession of Stuckey 614 So. 2d 55 La. 1993
of Supervisors, -08 (La.1985) (on rehearing); -24 (La.
Chamberlain v. State, Through DOTD 621 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
However, the Louisiana Supreme Court rejected a similar argument in the context of the $500,000.00 cap on general damages in a medical malpractice action against multiple defendants.