Legal Opinion
Haynes v. Fence
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Decided January 9, 2002No. 01-0026PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
|,EN BANC.
We revisit this case en banc to reconcile our ruling in this case with our ruling in Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District, 00-0762 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/21/01), 780 So.2d 1197, regarding the interpretation of the penalty provision of La.R.S. 23:1201(F). In Fontenot, a divided five-judge panel of this court interpreted that statute to hold that, while the injured employee was entitled to receive a separate penalty for a violation in regard to an indemnity benefits claim and a separate penalty for a violation in regard to a medical benefits claim, the employee was entitled to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Capo v. BlanchardLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1924
- Haynes v. Williams Fence and AluminumLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2001
- Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2001
- Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 2001
3Cited by7 opinions
- Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 2003
- Warren v. Maddox HaulingLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2002
- Juracovich v. ST. ANNE GENERAL HOSP.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2005
- Cox v. Port Aggregates, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2011
- Don R. Young v. Gulf Coast CarpetsLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2004
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.