Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Leday v. Lake Charles Pipe & Supply Co., 185 So. 655.

20 citing documents.

Upchurch v. Bituminous Insurance Co. 340 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
the court in evaluating medical evidence and ordering a second amputation between the first and third joints of plaintiff’s index finger, stated as follows: “ * * * [T]he medical testimony is almost unanimously to the effect that disability would be entirely relieved by the operation.” Id.
Guinn v. Fireman's Fund of America 243 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Operations on fingers were approved in Leday v. Lake Charles Pipe & Supply Co., (La.App.
Williams v. Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. 236 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
1st Cir.1939); Leday v. Lake Charles Pipe & Supply Co., (La.App.
Hamilton v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company 208 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
Operations on fingers have been ordered in Leday v. Lake Charles Pipe & Supply Co., La.App., and Skidmore v. Drumon Fine Foods, Inc., La.App., 119 So.
Murry v. Southern Pulpwood Insurance Company 136 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Sumrall v. JC Penney Company 120 So. 2d 67 La. 1960
Co. of Wis., ; Johnson v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., ; ; Leday v. Lake Charles Pipe & Supply Co., —all cited in Borders v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co., supra.
Patterson v. Cargo Services 95 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
In the early case of Leday v. Lake Charles Pipe & Supply Co., La.App., , the Court, on rehearing, said: "The most serious question presented is whether or not plaintiff should be required to submit to the amputation of his right index finger, and thus relieve the disability and minimize the damage.
Borders v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. 90 So. 2d 409 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Smith v. Mitchell 88 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
338 ; Leday v. Lake Charles Pipe & Supply Co,, La.App.1939, ; Powers v. Allied Chemical & Dye Corporation, La.App.1950, ; Fredieu v. Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co., La.
Watson v. T. Smith & Son, Inc. 88 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Co. of Wisconsin, La.App., ; Fredieu v. Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co., La.App., ; Leday v. Lake Charles Pipe & Supply Co., La.App., .
Turner v. Southern Industries Company 88 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
1 Cir., , which however concerned only amputation of a finger tip, a very minor operation with almost no danger or pain and suffering and with almost a certainty of success.
Clements v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 85 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
See Leday v. Lake Charles Pipe & Supply Co., La.App., .
Johnson v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 58 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1952
These are: Leday v. Lake Charles Pipe & Supply Company, La.App.Orleans 1st Cir., 1939, (finger injury); Powers v. Allied Chemical & Dye Corporation, La.App.
Powers v. Allied Chemical & Dye Corp. 45 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
At the first trial of this matter the District Court applied the doctrine in the case of Leday v. Lake Charles Pipe & Supply Company, La.App., , and rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff decreeing that plaintiff was totally and permanently disabled, and that compensation *215 was to be paid to plaintiff on the date the judgment became executory and further ordering the plaintiff to submit to an operation for the amputation of the little finger by a doctor
Spillman v. L. O. Stocker Co. 42 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
App., , ordering the plaintiff to submit to the operation for the amputation of his left index finger.
Green v. Anderson 38 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
Anderson v. May 195 So. 783 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
376 ; Leday v. Lake Charles Pipe & Supply Co., La.App., .
Hall v. Mengel Co. 191 So. 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
After a careful consideration of the question as to when an injured employee should be required to submit to an operation for the relief of his disability, or else have his compensation discontinued, we undertook to state the rule in the case of Leday v. Lake Charles Pipe & Supply Company, La.App., , as follows: “Our jurisprudence is well settled that an employee cannot be required to submit to an operation to relieve a disability where the medical testimony shows that the operation will be
Simmons v. Blair 190 So. 212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
The law on the question of an injured employee’s rights and his obligations in the matter of submitting to an operation, in relation to our Compensation Statute, was duly considered and passed on, as far as this court is concerned, .
Johnson v. Hillyer, Deutsch, Edwards, Inc. 186 So. 365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
148 (also on rehearing, ).