Legal Opinion · Dissent

K-Mart Corp. v. Malbrough

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided December 22, 2005No. 2004 CA 2609Published

1DissentDowning, J.

hi dissent because I can discern no change in conditions to justify modifying Mr. Malbrough’s award after trying my best to do so. The conditions at the time of modification were identical to the conditions at the time the prior judgment was entered: Mr. Malbrough was receiving TTD benefits while he was working the same job. Thus, I am reminded of the tale of the Emperor’s New Clothes when I read the workers’ compensation court’s explanation of the “change in conditions,” as follows:

In the instant case, the court finds that Mr. Malbrough’s employment and concurrent receipt of TTD constitutes…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Critser v. Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2001
  2. McElroy v. Dynasty Transp. Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API