Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 652 So. 2d 1323.

40 citing documents.

Robert James Lee Guidry v. Worknet 2000, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
4/10/95), which states, “[w]orkers’ compensation laws are to be liberally interpreted in favor of protecting workers from the economic burden of work-related injuries.” However, in 2012, the legislature amended La.R.S.
Scott v. Jefferson Parish Sch. Bd. 260 So. 3d 1310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
4/10/95), , 1325 (citing Lester v. Southern Casualty Ins.
Crockerham v. Weyerhaeuser Holden Wood Products 223 So. 3d 533 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
4/10/95), , 1325-1326: Workers’ compensation laws are to be liberally interpreted in favor of protecting workers from the economic burden of work-related injuries.
Tolley v. James Construction Group, LLC 202 So. 3d 1044 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
4/10/95), ; quoting Swearingen v. Air Products & Chem., Inc., and Wallace v. Remington Rand, Inc., 229 La.
Donald Lee Francis v. Home Furniture Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Francis v. Home Furniture Co. 195 So. 3d 662 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
veloping injury rule,” “an employee who suffers a work-related injury that immediately manifests itself, but only later develops into a disability, has a viable cause of action until one year from the development of the disabling injury, rather than from the first appearance of symptoms or from the first date of treatment.” Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 94-1859, p. 4 (La.4/10/95), .
Hill v. Iasis Glenwood Regional Medical 195 So. 3d 536 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets Inc., 94-1859 (La.4/10/95), , and citations therein; Huckaby v. BellSouth Telecomms.
Lois J. Shailow v. Gulf Coast Social Services La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Shailow v. Gulf Coast Social Services 166 So. 3d 1239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1209(A)(3) has been developed jurisprudentially into a doctrine known as the “ ‘developing injury rule.’ ” Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 94-1859, p. 5 (La.4/10/95), .
Slocum v. Northlake Driveline 117 So. 3d 171 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Winford v. Conerly Corp., 2004-1278, p. 5 (La.3/11/05), ; Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 94-1859, p. 4 (La.4/10/95), .
Bailey v. Blake's Bar 108 So. 3d 1235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
argues to the contrary that the jurisprudence interpreting the “developing injury rule” has been to the effect that when a claimant returns to work after an injury and then discovers that the injury prohibits him from fulfilling the requirements of the job, it is from the later date that prescription begins to run, citing, inter alia, Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, 94-1859 (La.4/10/95), .
Pitre v. Buddy's Seafood 102 So. 3d 815 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Winford v. Conerly Corp., 04-1278, p. 5 (La.3/11/05), ; Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 94-1859, p. 4 (La.4/10/95), .
Barbara Carradine v. Regis Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
4/10/95), White v. Phoenix Pharmacy, 03-1624 (La.App.
Carradine v. Regis Corp. 52 So. 3d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 94-1859 (La.4/10/95), ; White v. Phoenix Pharmacy, 03-1624 (La.App.
Tommy Manucy v. Joe Mancuy Racing La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 94-1859 (La.4/10/95) (citing Lester v. Southern Casualty Ins.
Manucy v. Joe Manucy Racing 34 So. 3d 994 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 94-1859 (La.4/10/95) (citing Lester v. Southern Casualty Ins.
Lemons v. Georgia Pacific Corp. 976 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 94-1859 (La.4/10/95), ; Stewart v. Hosp.
Mailhes v. District Attorney 967 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
3 Cir. 4/7/04), , *603 writ denied, 04-1150 (La.7/2/04), , quoting Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 94-1859, p. 5 (La.4/10/95), .
Gernine Mailhes v. District Attorney, Parish of Calcasieu La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Huckaby v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. 961 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
Winford v. Conerly Corporation, 2004-1278 (La.3/11/05), ; Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 94-1859 (La.4/10/95), .
Darryl Hinnard v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
4/10/95); -26 (second emphasis ours): Workers’ compensation laws are to be liberally interpreted in favor of protecting workers from the economic burden of work-related injuries.
Butler v. Parish of Jefferson 951 So. 2d 1218 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 94-1859, p. 4 (La.04/10/95), .
Harper v. CASINO 942 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 94-1859 (La.04/10/95), .
Warren v. ACTION OIL RECOVERY 944 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
See Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 94-1859, p. 5 (La.4/10/95), , citing Wex A. Malone & H. Alston Johnson III, 14 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise-Workers' Compensation § 384 (3d ed.1994).
Shane Richard v. Machine Specialty & Mfg. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
4/10/95), -26 (citations omitted) (bold emphasis added), the supreme court discussed the “developing injury rule” as follows: Workers’ compensation laws are to be liberally interpreted in favor of protecting workers from the economic burden of work-related injuries.
Richard v. Machine Specialty & Mfg., Inc. 921 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
In Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 94-1859, pp. 4-5 (La.4/10/95), -26 (citations omitted) (bold emphasis added), the supreme court discussed the “developing injury rule” as follows: Workers’ compensation laws are to be liberally interpreted in favor of protecting workers from the economic burden of work-related injuries.
Winford v. Conerly Corp. 897 So. 2d 560 La. 2005
Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 94-1859 (La.4/10/95) (citing Lester v. Southern Casualty Ins.
Rita Dautriel v. American Red Cross of Sw Louisiana La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
4/10/95) (citations omitted)..
Dautriel v. American Red Cross of SW Louisiana 883 So. 2d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 94-1859, pp. 4-5 (La.4/10/95) (citations omitted).
Brenda White v. Phoenix Pharmacy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
White v. Phoenix Pharmacy 870 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
In Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 94-1959 (La.4/10/95), , the supreme court described the developing disability doctrine as follows: Workers' compensation laws are to be liberally interpreted in favor of protecting workers from the economic burden of work-related injuries.
Iverstine v. Albemarle Corp. 852 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
[1] Sevin v. Schwegmann, 94-1859 (La.4/10/95), .
Boudreaux v. Angelo Iafrate Const. 848 So. 2d 3 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 94-1859 (La.4/10/95), .
Duplechain v. Dept. of Transportation & Development 827 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Even if we were to classify Duplechain’s suit as a claim for a developing injury as was done in Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 94-1859 (La.4/10/95), , Duplechain’s claim was not filed within two years of the accident.
Sperandeo v. Sydran Food Services, II, LP 806 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, 94-1859 (La.4/10/95), .
Smalley v. Integrity, Inc. 722 So. 2d 332 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
See, Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, 94-1859 (La.4/10/95), , and citations therein.
Desselle v. Dresser Indus. Valve 689 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Sevin v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, 94-1859, p. 4-5 (La.4/10/95); .
Maiden v. Crossroads of Louisiana, Inc. 678 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Howard v. Trelles 669 So. 2d 605 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Smith v. Fruehauf Trailer Operations 666 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996