John W. Smith v. Highlines Construction Co., Inc., and the Gray Insurance Company
Also decided on this docket: La., January 9, 2017 214 So. 3d 859
John W. Smith v. Highlines Construction Co., Inc., and the Gray Insurance Company, 228 So. 3d 1205 (La. 2017).
Opinion text
Supreme Court of Louisiana
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #046
FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
The Opinions handed down on the 22nd day of September, 2017, are as follows:
PER CURIAM:
2016-C-1443 JOHN W. SMITH v. HIGHLINES CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., AND THE GRAY
INSURANCE COMPANY
In light of our opinion in Burgess v. Sewerage & Water Board of
New Orleans, 16-2267 (La. 6/29/17), ___ So. 3d ___, the judgment
of the court of appeal is vacated and set aside insofar as it
finds claimant was not entitled to reimbursement. The case is
remanded to the Office of Workers’ Compensation for a
determination, consistent with the interpretation of La. R.S.
23:1203(A) set forth in Burgess, of whether the out-of-state
pharmacy’s services were not available in Louisiana or whether
the out-of-state pharmacy can provide services for comparable
costs to those of a Louisiana pharmacy. In all other respects,
the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed.
WEIMER, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
GENOVESE, J., concurs in the result and assigns reasons.
9/22/17
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2016-C-1443
JOHN W. SMITH
VERSUS
HIGHLINES CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., AND
THE GRAY INSURANCE COMPANY
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND
CIRCUIT, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DISTRICT 1E
PER CURIAM
In light of our opinion in Burgess v. Sewerage & Water Board of New
Orleans, 16-2267 (La. 6/29/17), ___ So. 3d ___, the judgment of the court of
appeal is vacated and set aside insofar as it finds claimant was not entitled to
reimbursement. The case is remanded to the Office of Workers’ Compensation for
a determination, consistent with the interpretation of La. R.S. 23:1203(A) set forth
in Burgess, of whether the out-of-state pharmacy’s services were not available in
Louisiana or whether the out-of-state pharmacy can provide services for
comparable costs to those of a Louisiana pharmacy. In all other respects, the
judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed.
09/22/17
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2016-C-1443
JOHN W. SMITH
VERSUS
HIGHLINES CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., AND
THE GRAY INSURANCE COMPANY
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit,
Office of Workers’ Compensation District 1E
WEIMER, J., dissenting.
Having granted the writ of certiorari in this matter, I would issue a full opinion
based upon the record before this court.
09/22/17
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2016-C-1443
JOHN W. SMITH
VERSUS
HIGHLINES CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. AND
THE GRAY INSURANCE COMPANY
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND
CIRCUIT, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DISTRICT 1E
GENOVESE, J., concurs in the result and assigns reasons.
I concur with the majority’s remand only to the extent of having the Office of
Worker’s Compensation determine whether the out-of-state pharmacy services were
not available in Louisiana or whether the out-of-state pharmacy can provide services
for comparable costs to those of a Louisiana pharmacy. In all other respects, and
particularly with respect to the issue of choice of pharmacy in a worker’s
compensation case, I maintain the position which I previously articulated in my
dissent in Burgess v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, 16-2268 (La.
6/29/17), __ So.3d __, that the choice of pharmacy does not necessarily rest with the
employer.