DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bronson v. Harris Ice Cream Co., 90 So. 759.

25 citing documents.

  • Bass v. SERVICE PIPE TRUCKING COMPANY INC. 289 So. 2d 78 La. 1974
  • Distinguished Bass v. Service Pipe Trucking Co. 273 So. 2d 349 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • Lebleu v. Phoenix of Hartford Insurance 254 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    That case involved recommended surgery to the hand, , 90 So.
  • Coine v. Smith 100 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
  • Reed v. Calcasieu Paper Company 98 So. 2d 175 La. 1957
    585 ; Bronson v. Harris Ice Cream Co., Inc., , 90 So.
  • Patterson v. Cargo Services 95 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    The compensation statute does not define what is meant by "proper medical treatment," but our courts have uniformly refused to order an injured employee to submit to surgery when it involved opening the abdominal or chest cavities, the lumbar region or bone joint, and required general or spinal anesthesia: , 90 So.
  • Duplechien v. States Exploration Company 94 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    Powers v. Allied Chemical & Dye Corp., La.App., ; , 90 So.
  • Smith v. Mitchell 88 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    Illus^ trative of this somewhat hesitant judicial approach to the problem and of the resulting vagueness and confusion, we point out the following conclusions which have been reached: (1) , 90 So.
  • Watson v. T. Smith & Son, Inc. 88 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    See Bronson v. Harris Ice Cream Co., Inc., , 90 So.
  • French v. Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of Wis. 70 So. 2d 179 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
  • Johnson v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 58 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1952
    The first case in Louisiana to present the issue here involved was that of Bronson v. Harris Ice Cream Company, Inc., 1922, , 90 So.
  • Fredieu v. Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co. 53 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1951
  • Bourgeois v. J. W. Crawford Const. Co. 36 So. 2d 13 La. 1948
    * * * ” Bronson v. Harris Ice Cream Company, Inc., , 90 So.
  • Simmons v. Blair 194 So. 585 La. 1940
    438 ; Bronson v. Harris Ice Cream Co., Inc., , 90 So.
  • Finley v. Texas Co. 162 So. 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
  • Crawford v. Tampa Inter-Ocean S. S. Co. 155 So. 409 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
  • Crawford v. Tampa Inter-Ocean S. S. Co. 150 So. 875 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
    455, ; Flanagan v. Sewerage & Water Board, 19 La.
  • Huval v. Sexton Corp. 139 So. 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
    nation, except when his refusal is entirely unreasonable, , 90 So.
  • Sybille v. Kelly-Weber Co. 121 So. 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
    Then again following the case of Bron-° son vs. Harris Ice Cream Co., , 90 So.
  • Perkins v. Long Bell Lumber Co. 8 La. App. 403 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
    Bronson vs. Harris Ice Cream Co., , 90 So.
  • Burson v. Ohio Oil Co. 6 La. App. 739 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1927
    38 of 1918, reads as follows: “That the rights and remedies herein granted tp an employee or his dependent on account of a personal injury for which he is entitled to compensation und.er this act shall be exclusive of all other rights and remedies of such employee, his personal representatives, dependents, relations, or otherwise, on account of such injury.” In Bronson vs. Harris Ice Cream Co., , 90 South.
  • Hilliard v. Merkel Construction Co. 4 La. App. 40 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
    In Bronson vs. Harris Ice Cream Co., Ins., , 90 South.
  • Martin v. Wyatt Lumber Co. 4 La. App. 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
    “Continuing disability of a workman injured* in the course of his employment due to his refusal to submit himself to safe and simple medical treatment is not proximately caused by the accident so as to bring himself within the operation of the workmen’s compensation act providing compensation where the injury is proximately caused by the accident.” In the case of Bronson vs. Harris Ice Cream Co., , 90 South.
  • Reeves v. Dietz 1 La. App. 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    The learned judge of the court a quo based his refusal to require plaintiff to submit to an operation or in the alternative to a diminution of compensation upon the case of Bronson vs. Harris Ice Cream Co., , 90 South.
  • Addison v. Powell Lumber Co. 1 La. App. 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1924
    The case of Bronson vs. Harris Ice Cream Co., Inc., , 90 South.