Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 737 So. 2d 41.

251 citing documents.

Simmon Taylor v. G. W. Morgan Logging Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Although the Workers’ Compensation Act is to be liberally construed in regard to benefits, penal statutes are to be strictly construed.” Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, pp. 8-9 (La.6/29/99), (citation omitted).
James Keys v. Republic Servs, Inc./allied Waste Servs of Acadiana-Scott La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Although the Workers’ Compensation Act is to be liberally construed in regard to benefits, penal statutes are to be strictly construed.” Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98- 2271, pp. 8-9 (La.6/29/99), (citation omitted).
Taylor v. G.W. Morgan Logging Co. 100 So. 3d 341 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Although the Workers’ Compensation Act is to be liberally construed in regard to benefits, penal statutes are to be strictly construed.” Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, pp. 8-9 (La.6/29/99), (citation omitted).
Barbara Brown v. Lafayette Association of Retarded Citizens, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99)
Brown v. Lafayette Ass'n of Retarded Citizens 94 So. 3d 950 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), .
Jerry Williamson v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Hall v. Macpapers, Inc. 95 So. 3d 1131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), .
Edward R. Bethel v. Lake City Trucking La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
6/29/99), (citation omitted).
Bethel v. Lake City Trucking 87 So. 3d 338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Although the Workers’ Compensation Act is to be liberally construed in regard to benefits, penal statutes |sare to be strictly construed.” Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, pp. 8-9 (La.6/29/99), (citation omitted).
Patrick Johnson v. Conagra Poultry Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
As quoted by the majority, Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, p. 8 (La.6/29/99); recognized that awards of penalties and attorney fees are ―imposed to discourage indifference and undesirable conduct by employers and insurers.‖ The focus is on the conduct of the employer/insurer.
Johnson v. Conagra Poultry Co. 87 So. 3d 279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
As quoted by the majority, Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, p. 8 (La.6/29/99); , recognized that awards of penalties and attorney fees are “imposed to discourage indifference and undesirable conduct by employers and insurers.” The focus is on the conduct of the employer/insurer.
Felton Mallery v. Dynamic Industries, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
6/29/99), (citation omitted).
Mallery v. Dynamic Industries, Inc. 86 So. 3d 826 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Although the Workers’ Compensation Act is to be liberally construed in regard to benefits, penal statutes are to be strictly construed.” Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, pp. 8-9 (La.6/29/99), (citation omitted).
Deloris K. Stenson v. Pat's of Henderson Seafood La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Merit Constructors, Inc. v. Hickman, 00-0943, p. 5 (La.1/17/01), Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98- 2271, p. 8-9 (La.6/29/99), Sharbono at p. 7, 696 So.2d at 1386.
Stenson v. Pat's of Henderson Seafood 84 So. 3d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Merit Constructors, Inc. v. Hickman, 00-0943, p. 5 (La.1/17/01), ; Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, p. 8-9 (La.6/29/99), ; Sharbono at p. 7 , 696 So.2d at 1386 .
Devra Renee Stockman v. Medical Technology, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Stockman v. Medical Technology, Inc. 81 So. 3d 198 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), .
George Keith Day v. Superior Derrick Services La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Day v. Superior Derrick Services 80 So. 3d 654 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 1998-2271 (La.6/29/99), .
Kent Normand v. Dresser Industries, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
6/29/99), (citation omitted).
Normand v. Dresser Industries, Inc. 79 So. 3d 448 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Although the Workers’ Compensation Act is to be liberally construed in regard to benefits, penal statutes are to be strictly construed.” Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, pp. 8-9 (La.6/29/99), (citation omitted).
Nancy Robinson v. Calcasieu Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Merit Constructors, Inc. v. Hickman, 00-0943, p. 5 (La.1/17/01), Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, p. 8-9 6 (La.6/29/99), Sharbono at p. 7, 696 So.2d at 1386.
Robinson v. Calcasieu Parish School Board 77 So. 3d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Merit Constructors, Inc. v. Hickman, 00-0943, p. 5 (La.1/17/01), ; Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271, p. 8-9 (La.6/29/99), ; Sharbono at p. 7 , 696 So.2d at 1386 .
Silverman v. Weatherford International, Inc. 83 So. 3d 11 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), ; Crochet v. Barbera Chevy-Chrysler Co., Inc., 04-1390 (La.App.1st Cir.6/29/05), .
Ford v. HOUSE OF RAEFORD 71 So. 3d 1157 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Authement v. Shappert Engineering, supra; Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), .
Iberia Medical Center v. Ward 53 So. 3d 421 La. 2010
Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 1998-2271 (La.6/29/99), .
Dexter Mitchell v. Artcrete, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
[Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), ]
Mitchell v. ARTCRETE, INC. 51 So. 3d 175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
[Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), .]
Townsend v. Jefferson Parish School Board 52 So. 3d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), ; Porter v. Pellerin Const. Co., 06-949 (La.App.
Central Louisiana Ambulatory Surgical Center, Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc. 46 So. 3d 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Statutes 23:1201(F)(2) provides that penalties and attorney fees “shall not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer had no control.” The Louisiana Supreme Court in Authement articulated the reasoning behind the imposition of penalties and fees as follows: As stated in Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), , awards of penalties and attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases are essentially penal in natur
Rastegar v. Magnolia School, Inc. 51 So. 3d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), *53 In the present case, the workers’ compensation judge assessed defendant with three separate penalties in the amount of $2,000 each: 1) for the improper payment of temporary total disability benefits based on the improper calculation of the claimant’s average weekly wage; 2) for the failure to authorize and pay Dr.
Central La. Ambulatory Surgical Center,(edith Hilborn) v. Rapides Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
6/29/99), awards of penalties and attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases are essentially penal in nature.
Central La. Ambulatory Surgical Center, (Vicky Lacour) v. Rapides Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
6/29/99), awards of penalties and attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases are essentially penal in nature.
Central La. Ambulatory Surgical Center, (David Nardin) v. Rapides Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
6/29/99), awards of penalties and attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases are essentially penal in nature.
Central La. Ambulatory Surgical Center, (Bridget Huie) v. Payless Shoesource, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
6/29/99), awards of penalties and attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases are essentially penal in nature.
Central La. Ambulatory Surgical Center (Travis Villemarette) v. Gilchrist Construction Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
6/29/99), awards of penalties and attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases are essentially penal in nature.
Central La. Ambulatory Surgical Center (Tammy Tyler) v. Rapides Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
6/29/99), awards of penalties and attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases are essentially penal in nature.
Central La. Ambulatory Surgical Center (Patricia Harmson) v. Rapides Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
6/29/99), awards of penalties and attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases are essentially penal in nature.
Central La. Ambulatory Surgical Center (Dwight Tennie) v. Rapides Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
6/29/99), awards of penalties and attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases are essentially penal in nature.
Central La. Ambulatory Surgical Center (Carmen Lacour) v. Rapides Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
6/29/99), awards of penalties and attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases are essentially penal in nature.
Central La. Ambulatory Surgical Center (Forrest Robinson) v. Rapides Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
6/29/99), awards of penalties and attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases are essentially penal in nature.
Gerald Moss v. Tommasi Construction, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Moss v. Tommasi Construction, Inc. 37 So. 3d 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
See Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), .
Connor v. Family Dollar Store 36 So. 3d 339 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), .
Larry Burns v. Interstate Brands Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99)
Burns v. Interstate Brands Corp. 30 So. 3d 271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), .
Sundown Express, Inc. v. Gonzales 27 So. 3d 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), ; Redler v. Giorlando’s Restaurant Corp., 07-658, p. 7 (La.App.
Reed v. St. Francis Medical Center 8 So. 3d 824 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Williams v. Rush Masonry, 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), ; Freeman v. Triad Builders, 39-657 (La.App.
Gregory Scott v. City of Pineville La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Scott v. City of Pineville 8 So. 3d 813 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Williams v. Rush Masonry, Inc., 98-2271 (La.6/29/99), .