Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Weber v. State, 635 So. 2d 188.

70 citing documents.

Trinidad Preciado v. Beaucoup Crawfish of Eunice La Restaurant Association Sif La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
Weber v. State, 93–0062 (La.4/11/94)
Walter McKay v. State of Louisiana, Dept. of Health and Human Services La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
at 893 (quoting Weber v. State, 93-62, p. 8 (La.4/11/94)
Rosemary Grimsley v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, James Construction Group, LLC, and State of Louisiana La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
Laura Carter v. Iberia Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Carter v. Iberia Parish Sch. Bd. 258 So. 3d 740 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Johnson v. Orleans Parish School Board 219 So. 3d 452 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
“[T]he employer bears the burden of proving entitlement to the immunity.” (La.
Adams v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 142 So. 3d 244 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2014
Through these allegations, the Estate contends the petition stated a cause of action that fits within the narrow exception to the Workers’ Compensation Act set forth in Weber v. State, 93-62 (La.4/11/94); .
Sibert v. National Oil Well Varco, L.P. 136 So. 3d 283 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
He shows that the party claiming immunity has the burden of proving it, Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94), ; he suggests that the incongruity between the two contracts, and the inconclusiveness of the change order, come nowhere near satisfying HDR’s burden.
Stewart v. Boh Bros. Construction Co. 128 So. 3d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
McLin, supra; Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94), .
Ruiz v. City of New Orleans 109 So. 3d 52 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94); .
Credit v. Richland Parish School Board 85 So. 3d 669 La. 2012
("Immunity statutes must be strictly construed against the party claiming the immunity.").
Henry Marange, Jr. v. Custom Metal Fabricators, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Marange v. Custom Metal Fabricators, Inc. 75 So. 3d 990 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The purpose of imposing penalties is to “nudge the employer into making timely payments when there is no reasonable basis for refusing or delaying its obligation.” Weber v. State, 93-62, p. 8 (La.4/11/94), .
Edward L. Williams, Sr. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Williams v. PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORP. 68 So. 3d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
McLin, supra; Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94), .
Daigre v. International Truck & Engine Corp. 67 So. 3d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Weber v. State, 93-0062, (La.4/11/94), .
Biscamp v. Sysco East Texas 63 So. 3d 1097 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.04/11/94), ; Williams, supra.
Labranche v. Fatty's, LLC 48 So. 3d 1270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Weber v. State, 93-0062, p. 5 (La.4/11/94), .
Posey v. NOMAC DRILLING CORP. 16 So. 3d 1211 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
McLin, supra; Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94), .
Stewart v. DAIQUIRI AFFAIR, INC. 20 So. 3d 1041 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94), .
Rainey v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc. 6 So. 3d 877 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94), .
Rainey v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc. 993 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94), .
BARABAY PROP. HOLD. CORP. v. Boh Bros. Const. Co., LLC 991 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94), p. 8, .
Fleming v. JE Merit Constructors, Inc. 985 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Weber v. State, 93-0062, p. 5 (La.4/11/94), .
Christopher Cormier v. State of La., Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Cormier v. STATE, DEPT. OF WILDLIFE 970 So. 2d 1216 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Weber v. State, 93-0062, p. 8 (La.4/11/94), .
Foshee v. LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU CAS. INS. 948 So. 2d 1171 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94), ; Kelty v. Brumfield, 93-1142 (La.2/25/94)
Hayes v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. 945 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
This issue harkens back to the supreme court's decision in Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94) , and its progeny.
David Mullins v. Concrete & Steel Erectors La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Mullins v. Concrete & Steel Erectors 940 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
ore, "`the purpose of an imposition of penalties is to "nudge the employer into making timely payments when there is no reasonable basis for refusing or delaying its obligation."'" Thomas v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 04-1584, p. 1 (La.2/25/05), ( quoting Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 13 (La.12/1/98), ( quoting Weber v. State, 93-62, p. 8 (La.4/11/94), )).
Leboeuf v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 934 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Citing Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94), , and Kelly v. CNA Ins.
Thomas v. Browning-Ferris, Inc. 894 So. 2d 1091 La. 2005
This Court has previously stated that "the purpose of an imposition of penalties is to `nudge the employer into making timely payments when there is no reasonable basis for refusing or delaying its obligation.'" Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 p. 13 (La.12/1/98), , citing Weber v. State, 93-0062 p. 8 (La.4/11/94), .
Pruitt v. Brinker, Inc. 899 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94), , 192 n. 5.
Willis v. Redfish Renovations, LLC 891 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94), .
Ernest v. Petroleum Service Corp. 868 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Weber v. State, 93-0062, p. 5 (La.4/11/94), .
Dordain v. Anthony Seafood & Lobster House 860 So. 2d 1166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
As further explained in Brown , quoting Weber v. State, 93-0062, p. 8 (La.4/11/94), , the purpose of an imposition of penalties is to “nudge the employer into making timely payments when there is no reasonable basis for refusing or delaying its obligation.” Id.
McLin v. Industrial Specialty Contractors 851 So. 2d 1135 La. 2003
Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94)
Dupree v. Dixie Carbonic, Inc. 817 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
The court emphasized that at the time of its earlier ruling in Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94), (where the employee died following the employer's denial of medical treatment), the Workers' Compensation Act had not yet been amended to vest jurisdiction in the Office of Workers' Compensation ("OWC") and to increase its power to issue orders regarding the necessity of medical treatment.
McLin v. Industrial Specialty Contractors, Inc. 818 So. 2d 947 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94), , 192 n. 5; Pitts v. Helmrich & Payne Drilling, 98-1345 (La.App.
Graves v. Gillyard 835 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
In Weber v. State of Louisiana, 93-0062 (La.4/1/1994), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that an employer’s intentional refusal to provide medical treatment to an employee injured in the course and scope of employment in the face of knowledge to a substantial certainty that the refusal would cause death, fell within the scope of the intentional act exception.
Babineaux v. Kemper Insurance 787 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
In Weber v. State of Louisiana, 93-62 (La.4/11/94); , the Louisiana Supreme Court created an exception to the general rule that an employee’s sole remedy against his employer for injuries sustained in a work-related accident is workers’ compensation benefits.
Shell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 782 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94), .
Livaccari v. Alden Engineering, Inc. 808 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
should be extended to non-death cases where a significant worsening of the plaintiffs condition is substantially certain to result from the denial of medical treatment.
Batiste v. Webre 774 So. 2d 1035 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
In Weber v. State of Louisiana, 93-62 (La.4/11/94); , the Louisiana Supreme Court created an exception to the general rule that an employee's sole remedy against his employer for injuries sustained in a work-related accident is workers' compensation benefits.
Howard v. OUR LADY OF THE LAKE REGIONAL MED. CTR. 768 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
See Weber v. State, 93-0062, pp. 9-10 (La.4/11/94), .
Hodges v. BOSSIER MED. CENTER HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION 764 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
[1] In so ruling, the court noted that the Kelly case failed to resolve the question of whether the rationale of Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94), , could be expanded to non-death cases when the employer's intentional refusal to pay for necessary medical services is substantially certain to result in a significant worsening of the claimant's condition.
Hale v. FA Richard & Associates, Inc. 756 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
[5] In Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.04/11/94), , the supreme court held that an employer (as opposed to a third-party administrator) can be sued in tort if it intentionally and arbitrarily denied necessary medical expenses when it knew to a substantial certainty that the refusal would result in the employee's death.
O'REGAN v. Preferred Enterprises, Inc. 758 So. 2d 124 La. 2000
[11] Commenting on these phrases, we stated in Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94), , 192 n. 5 as follows: This court has considered the terms "arising out of" and "in the course of" in Section 1031 as dual requirements that cannot be considered in isolation from each other.
Medine v. Geico General Ins. Co. 748 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94), ; Kelty v. Brumfield, 93-1142 (La.2/25/94)
Chase v. LA. RIVERBOAT GAMING PTNRSHP. 747 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
LAW In Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94), , the Louisiana Supreme Court carved out a "narrow exception" to the general rule that an injured employee's exclusive recourse against his employer lay in worker's compensation.