Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Buxton v. W. Horace Williams Co., 13 So. 2d 855.

19 citing documents.

Bates v. Rockwood Insurance 270 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Cripps v. Urania Lumber Company 213 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
(1943); Tate v. Gullett Gin Company, et al., La.App., (1st Cir. 1956); Brown v. Crown Zellerbach Corporation, La.App., (1st Cir. 1959); Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, Section 42.22; Malone, Louisiana Workmen's Compensation, 1964 p.o., Section 257.
Guidry v. Travelers Insurance Co. 210 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
McPhearson v. Hunt Lumber Co. 158 So. 2d 430 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Carrington v. Consolidated Underwriters, supra; , .
Goodley v. Brunet 150 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
Miller v. U. S. F. & G. Co., La.App.
Davenport v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. 146 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
“Tate v. Gullett Gin Company et al., La.App., ; , ; Dupre v. Wyble, La.App., ; Ladner v. Higgins, La.App., .” Miller v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Corporation, La.App.
Charleston v. American Insurance Co. 136 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Tate v. .Gullett Gin Company, et al., La.App., ; , ; Dupre v.Wyble, La.App., ; Ladner v. Higgins, La.App., .
Porter v. Dennis Sheen Transfer, Inc. 130 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
A. Yes.” , , holds that an employee, who had previously suffered from a mental disorder and was in good health and satisfactorily performing manual labor when accidentally injured, and thereafter immediately began to lose weight and progressively grew worse, was entitled to compensation as the accidental injury ag
Mouton v. Marquette Casualty Co. 109 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
(deposition p. 36) “Counsel for plaintiff cite and rely upon numerous cases where compensation was allowed for various forms of traumatic neurosis, or anxiety neurosis, conversation hysteria, etc., listed as follows: , (1943); Vega v. Higgins Industries, Inc., Ladner v. Higgins, Inc.
Viator v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc. 106 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Picquet v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., La.App., ; , ; Hill v. Meridian Fertilizer Factory, 19 La.App.
Parker v. General Earthwork Service 103 So. 2d 573 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
the Supreme Court said: “The issue in this case under the law is not whether the injury was the sole and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s present incapacity to work but whether the accidental injury aggravated and brought into active play his previous neurotic, mental or nervous troubles and wa
Miller v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. 99 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1957
Second Circuit, 1942, ; Buxton v. W. Horace Williams Co. Supreme Court, 1943, , ; Vega v. Higgins Industries, Inc., La.App.
Carrington v. Consolidated Underwriters 89 So. 2d 399 La. 1956
412 ; , , and Troquille v. Estate of Lacaze, 222 La.
Roy v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance 87 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
See e. g., , ; Clark v. Forest Lumber Co., 1 Cir., 9 La.App.
Tate v. Gullett Gin Company & Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. 86 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Awards of compensation for disability because of neurosis resulting from an accident in the course of employment are allowed by our Louisiana courts, , ; Dupre v. Wyble, La.
Dupre v. Wyble 85 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Awards of compensation for disability because of neurosis resulting from an accident in the course of employment have been allowed by our Louisiana courts, , ; Ladner v. Higgins, La.App., ; Peavy v. Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Company, La.App., ; Lala v. American Sugar Refining Company, La.App., 38 So.
Carrington v. Consolidated Underwriters 80 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
412 , , , and Troquille v. Estate of Lacaze, 222 La.
Caddo Contracting Co. v. Johnson 64 So. 2d 177 La. 1953
412 , , , and Troquille v. Estate of Lacaze, 222 La.
Distinguished Windham v. W. Horace Williams Co. 18 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
cited by the district Judge in his opinion, is readily distinguishable from the case before us. The preponderance of the testimony in the Buxton case established the fact that all other causes or diseases which might have been responsible for plaintiff's existing condition, save injury, had been elimi