DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Pendleton v. Barrett, 675 So. 2d 720.

27 citing documents.

  • Flood v. PENDLETON MEMORIAL METHODIST HOSP. 989 So. 2d 809 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    See, e.g., Pendleton v. Barrett, 95-2066 (La.5/31/96), ; Jones v. St.
  • Miller v. Lammico 973 So. 2d 693 La. 2008
    Pendleton v. Barrett, 95-2066, p. 9 (La.5/31/96), , 725 overruled on other grounds by Graham v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 97-0188 (La.9/9/97), .
  • LeRay v. Bartholomew 871 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    Pendleton v. Barrett, 95-2066 (La.5/31/96), , overruled on other grounds by Graham v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 97-0188 (La.9/9/97), .
  • Hall v. Brookshire Bros., Ltd. 848 So. 2d 559 La. 2003
    See, e.g., Pendleton v. Barrett, 95-2066 (La.5/31/96), ; Jones v. St.
  • Hall v. Brookshire Bros., Ltd. 831 So. 2d 1010 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    1987); Pendleton v. Barrett, 95-2066, p. 15 (La.5/31/96); .
  • Medical Review Panel Proceedings Reidling v. Smith 828 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    4 See Pendleton v. Barrett, 95-2066 (La.5/31/96), .
  • Greer v. Lammico 779 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    40:1299.44 C(5) [1] as interpreted in Pendleton v. Barrett, 95-2066 (La.5/31/96), , and Graham v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 27,338 (La.App.
  • Castille v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 758 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Pursuant to Pendleton v. Barrett, 95-2066 (La.5/31/96); , the court of appeal upheld the determination of the trial court, finding “there is no express legislative intent for retroactive application” and that the amendment was substantive and could be applied prospectively only.
  • McPherson v. Lake Area Medical Center 755 So. 2d 972 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    In so holding, Graham expressly rejected the pretrial procedure it had enunciated in Pendleton v. Barrett, 95-2066 (La.5/31/96); .
  • Potier v. Commissioner of Ins. 753 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    40:1299.44 C(5); Pendleton v. Barrett, 95-2066, p. 9 (La.5/31/96), -26 .
  • Vick v. Ford 721 So. 2d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    At the time this matter was heard, payment of the statutory obligation of $100,-000.00 established an admission of negligence, causation, and damages according to Pendleton v. Barrett, 95-2066 (La.5/31/96); .
  • Moody v. United Nat. Ins. Co. 743 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    After plaintiffs death, his survivors continued the action against the PCF; the trial judge conducted a hearing in accord with Pendleton v. Barrett, 95-2066 (La.5/31/96), .
  • Bramlet v. LA. PATIENTS'COMP. FUND 712 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    On July 8, 1997, the trial judge conducted a
  • Gravley v. Giambelluca 758 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    In Pendleton v. Barrett, 95-2066 (La.5/31/96), , the Supreme Court addressed the issue of the burden of proving a causal relationship between the fault statutorily admitted by virtue of a *161 settlement for $100,000 and the damages claimed by the plaintiff.
  • Greer v. Lammico 712 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    40:1299.44 C(5) as interpreted in Pendleton v. Barrett, 95-2066 (La.5/31/96), , *600 and Graham v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 27,338 (La.App.
  • Pendleton v. Barrett 706 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • Graham v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 699 So. 2d 1089 La. 1997
    Notwithstanding that the applicant failed to raise in his rehearing application the issue that prompted my dissent, I feel so strongly that Pendleton v. Barrett, 95-2066 (La.1996), , should not be overruled and that, by the terms LSA-RS 40:1299.44(0(5) of the Medical Malpractice Act, medical malpractice victims need not prove causation as to the primary harm in a claim against the Plaintiffs Compensation Fund where $100,-000.00 has been paid in settlement of the claim, 1 that I would nonetheless
  • Dunn v. Bryant 701 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • Graham v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 699 So. 2d 365 La. 1997
    Action on the Fund's application for certiorari to this court was deferred while this court heard and decided the case of Pendleton v. Barrett, 95-2066 (La.5/31/96); , in which the court addressed the issue of the burden of proving causation in medical malpractice cases after a settlement for $100,000.
  • Ruiz v. Oniate 697 So. 2d 1373 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    Cf. Pendleton v. Barrett, 95-2066, p. 15 (La.5/31/96); .
  • Graham v. Burkett 690 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    5/31/96), , in which it held that once a settlement of $100,000 has been reached between a plaintiff and a health care provider in a medical malpractice case, a trial judge must make a determination of which of the plaintiff's harms are "original" and which are "secondary."
  • Greer v. Lammico 688 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    5/31/96), , in which the court determined whether La.R.S.
  • Graham v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 686 So. 2d 955 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    See Pendleton v. Barrett, 95-2066 (La.5/31/96), .
  • Graham v. Center 683 So. 2d 1219 La. 1996
  • Guillory v. McCulloch 682 So. 2d 731 La. 1996
  • Bijou v. Alton Ochsner Medical Found. 679 So. 2d 893 La. 1996
    rehearing denied (June 28, 1996); Jones v. St.
  • Gauthreaux v. Trosclair 676 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    5/31/96), , the Supreme Court stated "payment by a qualified health care provider of $100,000 to a malpractice victim in settlement of a claim statutorily admits and establishes his liability, and the only remaining issue is the calculation or assessment of damages."