DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 674 So. 2d 947.

42 citing documents.

  • State, DOTD v. Berry 147 So. 3d 270 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    It contends that when the claimant admits at trial that he can perform light, sedentary work, he is not entitled to PTD, Daugherty v. Domino’s Pizza, 95-1394 (La.5/21/96), ; Keasley v. Transit Management of Southeast La., 2010-0786 (La.App.
  • Perrilloux v. Uniforms by Kajan, Inc. 131 So. 3d 1026 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Daugherty v. Domino’s Pizza, 95-1394 (La.5/21/96); .
  • Poissenot v. St. Bernard Parish Sheriff's Office 56 So. 3d 170 La. 2011
    Daugherty v. Domino’s Pizza, 95-1394, pp. 8-9 (La.5/21/96)
  • Charles L. Erwin, Jr. v. Town of Jena La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • Erwin v. Town of Jena 987 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    Perron, 867 So.2d at 90 , quoting Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394, p. 4 (La.5/21/96), .
  • Christopher Cormier v. State of La., Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    5/21/96), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that where the fact of a late payment is uncontradicted, and the employer fails to reasonably controvert the payment or show 22 that it resulted from conditions over which the employer had no control, La.R.S.
  • Cormier v. STATE, DEPT. OF WILDLIFE 970 So. 2d 1216 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    In Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394 (La.5/21/96), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that where the fact of a late payment is uncontradicted, and the employer fails to reasonably controvert the payment or show that it resulted from conditions over which the employer had no control, La.R.S.
  • Porter v. Pellerin Construction Co. 958 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    Daugherty v. Domino’s Pizza, 95-1394 (La.5/21/96), n. 4 , citing Freeman v. Poulan/Weed Eater, 93-1530 (La.1/14/94), .
  • Dianna Broussard v. Lafayette Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Broussard v. Lafayette Parish School Bd. 939 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394, p. 14 (La.5/21/96), .
  • Clifton Maricle v. Sunbelt Builders, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    5/21/96), and Newson v. Richard Spurgeon Masonry, 03-1367 (La.App.
  • Maricle v. Sunbelt Builders, Inc. 916 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    The WCJ correctly noted that Maricle had the burden of proving that the bills relating to his treatment at the Lord Clinic and with Dr. Gunderson were received by Defendants, relying on Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394 (La.5/21/96), , and Newson v. Richard Spurgeon Masonry, 03-1367 (La.App.
  • Frith v. Riverwood, Inc. 892 So. 2d 7 La. 2005
    Bossier, Inc., 95-2075 (La.7/2/96), (law at time of work-related accident determines whether claim is prescribed); and Daugherty v. Domino's *15 Pizza, 95-1394 (La.5/21/96), (law at time of work-related accident determines whether claimant is permanently or temporarily partially disabled).
  • Perron v. ST. LANDRY PARISH ECON. DIST. 867 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    In so doing, we acknowledged our prior holding in Mitchell, , but noted: However, in a later supreme court case, Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394, p. 14 (La.5/21/96), , the court stated: Where the fact of late payment is uncontradicted and an employer fails to show that the late payment resulted from conditions over which the employer had no control or that the employee's right to have the bill paid by the employer is controverted, La.R.S.
  • Gerard Perron v. St. Landry Parish Economic Industrial La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    enalties and attorney fees in connection with a claim for medical benefits where the WCJ found that the employee “was neither denied treatment nor dunned for payment by the medical provider.” In so doing, we acknowledged our prior holding in Mitchell, but noted: However, in a later supreme court case, Daugherty v. Domino’s Pizza, 95-1394, p. 14 (La.5/21/96), the court stated: Where the fact of late payment is uncontradicted and an employer fails to show that the late payment resulted from condit
  • Gajeske v. Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. 859 So. 2d 896 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    NOTES [1] See Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394 (La.5/21/96), , which held that light duty employment thirty miles from claimant's home was not reasonable due to his physical inability to drive more than a short distance from his home; Joyner v. Davison Transport, Inc., 28,880 (La.App.2d Cir.1/22/97), , which determined that an eighty-four mile commute four days pe
  • Ware v. Allen Parish School Bd. 854 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    However, in a later supreme court case, Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394, p. 14 (La.5/21/96), , the court stated: Where the fact of late payment is uncontradicted and an employer fails to show that the late payment resulted from conditions over which the employer had no control or that the employee's right to have the bill paid by the employer is controverted, La.R.S.
  • Belaire v. Don Shetler Olds Buick Chevrolet 847 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    In Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394, p. 14 (La.5/21/96), , the supreme court stated: Where the fact of late payment is uncontradicted and an employer fails to show that the late payment resulted from conditions over which the employer had no control or that the employee's right to have the bill paid by the employer is *731 controverted, La.R.S.
  • Flintroy v. Scott Cummins Salvage 839 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    23:1221(3)(c)(i); Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394 (La.05/21/96), ; Joyner v. Davison Transport, Inc., 28,880 (La.App.2d Cir.01/22/97), .
  • Johnson v. Louisiana Container Co. 834 So. 2d 1052 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    Serv., Inc., 94-2989 (La.2/9/95); ; Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394 (La.5/21/96); ; Chevalier v. L.H.
  • Cox v. Roofing Supply, Inc. 825 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394 (La.5/21/96), ; Brown v. Ruskin Mfg.
  • Burge v. Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n 819 So. 2d 1098 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    Serv., Inc., 94-2989 (La.2/9/95); ; Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394 (La.5/21/96); ; Chevalier v. L.H.
  • Lang-Parker v. Unisys Corp. 809 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    However, neither party questions this omission, therefore, we will proceed in our determination of whether claimant is entitled to SEBs and additional vocational rehabilitation based on the evidence in the record before us. In Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394 (La.5/21/96), , the court was faced with an identical issue regarding the awarding of SEBs and vocational rehabilitation.
  • Todd v. Security Industrial Ins. 759 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    2 Cir. 4/3/96), , writ denied *1087 96-1133 (La.6/7/96), , and distinguishes Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394 (La.5/21/96), .
  • Yarnell Ice Cream Co. v. Allen 759 So. 2d 1066 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    See, e.g., Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), ; Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394 (La.5/21/96), , and numerous appellate court cases.
  • Skipper v. Acadian Oaks Hosp. 762 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Serv., Inc., 94-2989 (La.2/9/95); ; Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394 (La.5/21/96); ; Chevalier v. L.H.
  • Brown v. Ruskin Mfg. Co. 756 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394 (La.5/21/96), .
  • Fisher v. Lincoln Timber Co. 730 So. 2d 973 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394 (La.5/21/96), .
  • Traweek v. City of West Monroe 713 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394 (La.05/21/96), .
  • Harris v. Bancroft Bag, Inc. 714 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    (emphasis ours) Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394 (La.5/21/96), ; and cases cited therein.
  • Clark v. Mrs. Fields Cookies 707 So. 2d 17 La. 1998
    Consequently, these reasons, as well as the fundamental precept that the provisions of the Worker's Compensation Act are to be liberally construed in favor of the claimant, See Bynum v. Capital City Press, Inc. 93-1395 (La.7/2/96), ; Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394 (La.5/21/96), , support the conclusion that prescription was suspended during the plaintiff's incarceration.
  • Seal v. Gaylord Container Corp. 704 So. 2d 1161 La. 1997
    Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394 (La.5/21/96), ; Smith v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections, 93-1305 (La.2/28/94), .
  • LeJeune v. Trend Services, Inc. 699 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    NOTES [1] In Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394 (La.5/21/96); , the supreme court awarded penalties for failure to timely pay an accident-related medical bill for an accident which occurred on November 21, 1988.
  • Fallen v. New Orleans Police Dept. 697 So. 2d 1077 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394 (La.5/21/96), .
  • Kendrick v. Bill Liberto Enterprises 698 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    [7] But see Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394 (La.5/21/96); , (La.App.
  • Spencer v. Gaylord Container Corp. 693 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    See also Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394, p. 6 (La.5/21/96) ; Miles v. F.D.
  • Bastoe v. Burger King Distribution Srv. 691 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Daugherty v. Domino’s Pizza, 95-1394, p. 8 (La.05/21/95), .
  • Joyner v. Davison Transport, Inc. 688 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    23:1221(3)(c)(i); Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394 (La.5/21/96), .
  • Ridley v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board 684 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394 p. 6 (La.5/21/96); , 951 n. 4.
  • Livings v. LANGSTON COMPANIES 685 So. 2d 405 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Our supreme court recently addressed this issue in Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, 95-1394 (La.05/21/96); .
  • Clifton v. RAPIDES REGIONAL MED. CENTER 689 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    23:1221(3); Edward L. Daugherty v. Domino's Pizza, Zurich-American Insurance Co.
  • Chevalier v. LH Bossier, Inc. 676 So. 2d 1072 La. 1996