Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite LeBreton v. Rabito, 714 So. 2d 1226.

137 citing documents.

Farve v. Jarrott 886 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
), a premature lawsuit does not interrupt prescription, LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), , and, consequently, the plaintiff's *596 request for review panel was untimely pursuant to La.
Jones v. State 891 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
In an instance of conflict between the Civil Code and the medical malpractice law, “the statute specifically directed to the matter at issue must prevail as an exception to the statute more general in character.” LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), .
Johnson v. Glenwood Regional Medical Center 877 So. 2d 241 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
40:1299.47 A(2)(a); Le-Breton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), ; Holmes v. Lee, 35,021 (La.App.
Richard v. Tenet Health Systems, Inc. 871 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
However, both of these cases were decided before LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), , a decision which changed the way courts analyze prescription issues in medical malpractice cases.
Martin v. Comm-Care Corp. 866 So. 2d 225 La. 2004
I continue to believe that the majority's resolution of this prescription issue in LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), , was wrong and that application of the faulty analysis in LeBreton serves in this case to cause a near-unconscionable result denying the rights of the survivors of the deceased asserted-victim of malpractice.
Bordelon v. Medical Center of Baton Rouge 871 So. 2d 1075 La. 2004
LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), ; Wimberly v. Gatch, 93-2361 (La.4/11/94), .
Bordelon v. Medical Center of Baton Rouge 857 So. 2d 376 La. 2003
LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), ; Wimberly v. Catch, 93-2361 (La.4/11/94), .
Martin v. Comm-Care Corp. 859 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
In Lebreton v. Rabito, 1997-2221 (La.7/8/98), , the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that prescription in medical malpractice actions is governed by the Medical Malpractice Act.
Doe v. Jones 857 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
See LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221, p. 7 (La.7/8/98), .
Williams v. Tri-State Physical Therapy Inc. 850 So. 2d 991 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
See, Holmes, supra, at 1235, 1236 , citing, LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), .
Distinguished Brown ex rel. Brown v. State, Department of Health & Hospitals 841 So. 2d 747 La. 2003
I would grant the writ and have the court determine whether this matter is distinguishable from LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), , in the respect that here the wrongful death action remained in place and had not been dismissed when the medical review panel was sought just short of two years after the incident.
Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist. 836 So. 2d 14 La. 2003
LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), .
Bordelon v. Medical Center of Baton Rouge 836 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
art. 3463; LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), .
Brown ex rel. Brown v. State, Department of Health & Hospitals 832 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
7/8/98), and Geiger v. State, 2001-2206 (La.
Sherman v. Touro Infirmary Hospital 832 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
The Shermans appeal arguing that the trial court erred in relying on LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), , and sustaining the exception of prescription.
Burns v. City of Kenner 824 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
We are aware of LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), , but do not find that case controlling here.
Geiger v. State Ex Rel Dept. of Health 815 So. 2d 80 La. 2002
At the hearing, the state argued that the claim had prescribed because more than one year had elapsed from the date of the act of alleged malpractice before the plaintiffs filed their panel request, and that, under LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), , the filing of the 1993 suit did not interrupt the running of prescription.
Schulingkamp v. Ochsner Clinic 813 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
3 Cir.1985); overruled by LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98); .
Fortier v. Dehne 804 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
these defendants are subject to the suspension of prescription as provided under the Act.
Jacobs v. LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU INS. 815 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
[3] LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98); .
Wesco v. Columbia Lakeland Medical Center 801 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Though we agree with Ms. Wesco's starting premise, the balance of her analysis is illogical and contrary to the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), , which was the basis for the trial court's June 1, 2000 judgment.
Holmes v. Lee 795 So. 2d 1232 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), .
Washington v. Fustok 797 So. 2d 56 La. 2001
LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), .
Johnson v. City of Bossier City 793 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
On appeal, Johnson asserts that the trial court erred in granting the exception of prescription by retroactively applying the holding of LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), to the facts of this case.
Baham v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans 792 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), [1] .
City of Pineville v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE 791 So. 2d 609 La. 2001
Le-Breton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), .
Geiger v. State ex rel. Department of Health & Hospital 812 So. 2d 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
and LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), .
Williams v. Louisiana State University Medical Center 792 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
5th Cir.1982); LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), .
Coleman v. Deno 787 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), , overruling Hernandez v. Lafayette Bone & Joint Clinic, (La.App.
Guitreau v. Kucharchuk 763 So. 2d 575 La. 2000
In LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), , "we save[d] for another day the question of whether the medical malpractice victim gets any period of time that remains unused at the time of the filing of the request for the medical review panel when the ninety-day period of suspension after the decision of the medical review panel is completed."
Dixon v. LA STATE UNIV. MEDICAL CENTER 750 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
cited in LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), .
Distinguished Coleman v. Acromed Corp. 764 So. 2d 81 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
[4] We distinguish LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), , on which Defendants heavily rely.
Killeen v. Jenkins 752 So. 2d 146 La. 1999
Civ.Code art. 13; LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), .
Ackers v. Borrow 745 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
In instances of a conflict, the statute specifically directed to the matter at issue must prevail as an exception to the statute more general in character, (citation omitted).” See also the Supreme Court decision in LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), which held that: “rules of statutory construction provide that where two statutes deal with the same subject matter, they should be harmonized if possible; however, if there is a conflict, the statute specifically directed to the matter at iss
Guitreau v. Kucharchuk 740 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Ap-pellees’ writ application was granted by the supreme court, resulting in remand to this court for consideration of the issue noted in footnote five of LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221, p. 7, n.5 (La.7/8/98); n. 5 .
Guitreau v. Kucharchuk 726 So. 2d 915 La. 1998
Granted and remanded to the court of appeal for a decision concerning the question left open and noted in footnote 5 in Lebreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), .
Guitreau v. Kucharchuk 726 So. 2d 915 La. 1998
Granted and remanded to the court of appeal for a decision concerning the question left open and noted in footnote 5 in Lebreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), .