DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 763 So. 2d 575.

62 citing documents.

  • Neville Kirt; Alvin Kirt; And Lamont Kirt, Individually and on Behalf of Elaine Kirt v. Rebecca C. Metzinger, … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
    5/16/00), which stated that “[m]ere notice of a wrongful act will not suffice to commence the running of the prescriptive period” and that “in order for the prescriptive period to commence, the plaintiff must be able to state a cause of action—both a wrongful act and resultant damage.” As stated above, Plaintiff stated a
  • James Self Wilma Self v. Bpx Operating Company La. 2024
    5/16/00), (reading a specific provision in the Medical Malpractice Act in conformity with a general Civil Code article).
  • John Glenn Raymond v. Felix Lasserre, Sr. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
  • Sarah Johnson, Juanita Leichman, and Tonette Dixon v. Ruston Louisiana Hospital Co., LLC d/b/a Northern Louisiana Medical Center, … La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
  • State Of Louisiana, Et Al. v. Louisiana Land & La. 2022
    5/16/00), (“plaintiff discovered that he had a cause of action .
  • In Re Medical Review Panel Proceedings for the Claim of Alex Lane (D) v. Nexion Health at Minden, … La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
  • William Cook and Renee Soileau v. Carl Swayze Rigby, M.D. and Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
  • Rodney Denoux v. Donna Grodner La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
  • Kevon Brooks,et Al v. Rachelle Meaux, M.D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    5/16/00), the supreme court construed La.Civ.Code art. 3472 within the context of a medical malpractice claim, explaining: [W]hen the ninety-day period of suspension after the decision of the medical review panel is completed, plaintiffs in medical malpractice actions are entitled to the period of ti
  • Brooks v. Meaux 275 So. 3d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    5/16/00), , 580, the supreme court construed La.Civ.Code art. 3472 within the context of a medical malpractice claim, explaining: [W]hen the ninety-day period of suspension after the decision of the medical review panel is completed, plaintiffs in medical malpractice actions are entitled to the period of time, under [La.R.S.]
  • Turner v. E. Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd. 252 So. 3d 990 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • Jimerson v. Majors 211 So. 3d 651 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
  • Ronald Millard Irby v. Tony Mancuso, Sheriff of Calcasieu Parish La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
  • Irby v. Mancuso 201 So. 3d 413 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • Truxillo v. Thomas 200 So. 3d 972 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    As the Supreme Court noted in Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 99-2570, p. 6 (La.5/16/00), , “plaintiffs in medical malpractice actions are entitled |4to the period of time, under LSA-R.S.
  • Reneka Shepard on Behalf of Her Minor Child Lynkeith James, Jr. v. George Coleman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    “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 issue must prevail.” Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, M.D., 99-2570 (La.5/16/00)
  • Verbois v. Taylor 185 So. 3d 59 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 99-2570 (La.5/16/00), -80 ; In re Med.
  • Watson v. Glenwood Regional Medical Center 163 So. 3d 817 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    loss of chance as a separate element of damages, rather than as a general theory of recovery, in medical malpractice actions based on lost chance.” 2 Four years later, the supreme court stated that for the prescriptive period to eom- *822 menee, “the plaintiff must be able to state a cause of action — both a wrongful act and resultant damages.” Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 99-2570 (La.5/16/00), p. 6, .
  • Hume v. Prestige Care, L.L.C. 165 So. 3d 233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    “The one-year prescriptive period for a medical malpractice action will not begin to run at the earliest possible indication that a patient may have suffered some wrong.” Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 99-2570, p. 6 (La.5/16/00), -80 .
  • In re Medical Review Panel ex rel. Rachal 144 So. 3d 1199 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    Abbott, supra; Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 99-2570 (La.5/16/00), .
  • Morgan v. Patwardhan 137 So. 3d 680 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    Abbott, supra; Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 99-2570 (La.5/16/00), .
  • Barry Giglio, Et Ux. v. State of La., Department of Children & Family Services La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    5/16/00), Chesne v. Mayeaux, 03-570 (La.App.
  • Giglio v. State, Department Child & Family Services 129 So. 3d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 99-2570 (La.5/16/00), ; Chesne v. Mayeaux, 03-570 (La.App.
  • McKenzie v. Imperial Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 122 So. 3d 42 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
    While we agree with the underlying premise espoused by the court (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 issue must prevail, see Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, M.D., 99-2570 (La.5/16/00), ), we do not find a conflict between La.
  • Milbert v. Answering Bureau, Inc. 120 So. 3d 678 La. 2013
    See Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 1999-2570 (La.5/16/00); .
  • Davidson v. Glenwood Resolution Authority, Inc. 108 So. 3d 345 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 1999-2570 (La.5/16/00)
  • Robert L. Manard III PLC v. Falcon Law Firm PLC 119 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2012
    See Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 99-2570, p. 8 (La.5/16/00), -81 , citing Stobart v. State of Louisiana, through Department of Transportation and Development, 92-1328 (La.4/12/93), .
  • Guillot v. Daimlerchrysler Corp. 50 So. 3d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    In the context of a medical malpractice cause of action, the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that “[m]ere notice of a wrongful act *181 will not suffice to commence the running of the prescriptive period.” Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 99-2570, p. 6 (La.5/16/00), .
  • Warren v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co. 21 So. 3d 186 La. 2009
    As acknowledged by this court in Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 99-2570 (La.5/16/00), , where there is no conflict between the general codal articles and the specific provisions of the Medical Malpractice Act, the various provisions should be read in conformity with each other.
  • Medical Review Panel Proceeding of Williams v. Lewis 17 So. 3d 26 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    See Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 99-2570, p. 7 (La.5/16/00), .
  • Kampmann v. Mason 7 So. 3d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 1999-2570, p. 1 (La.5/16/00), .
  • Pickett v. WILLIS-KNIGHTON PIERREMONT 998 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    In Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 99-2570 (La.5/16/00), , we held that when the ninety-day period of suspension after the decision of the medical review panel is completed, the medical malpractice victim is entitled to the remainder of the one-year prescriptive period that was unused at the time the request for the medical review panel was filed.
  • Borel v. Young 989 So. 2d 42 La. 2008
    [13] In Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 99-2570 (La.5/16/00), , we held that when the ninety-day period of suspension after the decision of the medical review panel is completed, the medical malpractice victim is entitled to the remainder of the one-year prescriptive period that was unused at the time the request for the medical review panel was filed.
  • In Re Smithson 991 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    See Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 99-2570 (La.5/16/00), .
  • In Re Medical Review Panel Proc. of Ouder 991 So. 2d 58 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 99-2570 (La.5/16/2000), .
  • In Re: Elijah Herring La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    5/16/00), and LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.
  • In Re Herring 974 So. 2d 924 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    This argument is based upon the supreme court's holdings in Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 99-2570 (La.5/16/00), , and LeBreton v. Rabito, 97-2221 (La.7/8/98), .
  • Booker v. Byrd 968 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 99-2570 (La.5/16/00), .
  • In Re Noe 958 So. 2d 617 La. 2007
    Further, this court stated as follows in Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 99-2570 (La.5/16/00), : The one-year prescriptive period for a medical malpractice action will not begin to run at the earliest possible indication that a patient may have suffered some wrong.
  • Borel v. Young 947 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    [4] Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, M.D., 99-2570 (La.5/16/00), , held when the statutory ninety-day period of suspension is complete, a plaintiff is entitled to the remainder of the one year prescriptive period that was unused at the time of the request for a medical review panel.
  • Minos Borel, Sr. v. Lafayette General Medical Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    5/16/00), held when the statutory ninety-day period of suspension is complete, a plaintiff is entitled to the remainder of the one year prescriptive period that was unused at the time of the request for a medical review panel.
  • Allie Mae Bruce v. Rapides Regional Medical Center La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    5/16/00), (when statutory 90-day period of suspension after decision of medical review panel is completed, plaintiffs in medical malpractice actions are entitled to the remainder of the one-year prescriptive period that was unused at the time their request for a medical review panel was filed); and see, Townsley v. Brierty, 97-
  • Fuselier v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. 940 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, M.D., 99-2570 (La.5/16/00), .
  • Golden v. PATIENT'S COMP. FUND BD. 924 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 99-2570 (La.5/16/2000), .
  • Shawane Alexander v. Nicole Gary La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    5/16/00), (citing Stobart v. State of Louisiana, Through Dep’t of Transp.
  • Alexander v. Gary 924 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    3 Cir. 11/5/03) , ; see also Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 99-2570 (La.5/16/00), (citing Stobart v. State of Louisiana, Through Dep't of Transp.
  • Willa Dean Jackson v. Hershal R. Barrow La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    5/16/00), (citing Stobart v. State of Louisiana, Through Dep’t of Transp.
  • Allen J. Roche v. Jefferson Davis Electric Cooperative, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    5/16/00), (citing Stobart v. State of Louisiana, Through Dep’t of Transp.
  • Jackson v. Barron 922 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    3 Cir. 11/5/03) , ; see also Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 99-2570 (La.5/16/00), (citing Stobart v. State of Louisiana, Through Dep’t of Transp.
  • Roche v. Jefferson Davis Electric Cooperative, Inc. 922 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    3 Cir. 11/5/03) , ; see also Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 99-2570 (La.5/16/00), (citing Stobart v. State of Louisiana, Through Dep’t of Transp.