Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Barron v. First Lake Properties, Inc., 636 So. 2d 970.

15 citing documents.

Robert Daniels v. The State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Transportation and Development La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
Daniels v. State Through Department of Transportation and Development 275 So. 3d 998 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
Gabriel v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. 230 So. 3d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Sherry Debarge v. Lfi Lake Charles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
5 Cir. 3/29/94), the court went on to state that the compensability of a claimant’s work related injury may be generally admitted, while authorization for a specific medical procedure is denied, amounting to denial of compensability under La.R.S.
DeBarge v. LFI of Lake Charles 154 So. 3d 1279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
5 Cir. 3/29/94) , , the court went on to state that the compensability of a claimant’s work related injury may be generally admitted, while authorization for a specific medical procedure is denied, amounting to denial of compensa-bility under La.R.S.
Hatfield v. AMETHYST CONST., INC. 999 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Stewart v. Livingston Parish School Bd. 991 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Yvonne Louviere v. Food & Fun, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
5 Cir. 3/29/94), the court went on to state that the compensability of a claimant’s work related injury may be generally admitted, while authorization for a specific medical procedure is denied, amounting to denial of 9 compensability under La.R.S.
Louviere v. Food & Fun, Inc. 941 So. 2d 155 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
5 Cir. 3/29/94) , , the court went on to state that the compensability of a claimant's work related injury may be generally admitted, while authorization for a specific medical procedure is denied, amounting to denial of compensability under La.R.S.
Smith v. Roy O. Martin Lumber Co. 871 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
5 Cir. 3/29/94) , (noting if a "claim is found to be valid by the insurer or the court, the employer will be liable for those expenses under La.R.S.
Lawrence Hagler Smith v. Roy O. Martin Lumber Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
5 Cir. 3/29/94), (noting if a “claim is found to be valid by the insurer or the court, the employer will be liable for those expenses under La.R.S.
Sneed v. RTA/TMSEL 869 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Gros v. Gaudin 773 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Martin v. Elmwood Medical Center 665 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Buckel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 663 So. 2d 869 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995