Boudreaux v. Angelo Iafrate

11 Citing cases

  1. Torres v. La. Shrimp

    20 So. 3d 1034 (La. Ct. App. 2009)

    LSA-R.S. 23:1209 A. Initially, the burden of proving that prescription has run falls on the party asserting it. Boudreaux v. Angelo Iafrate Construction, 2002-0992, p. 3 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/14/03), 848 So.2d 3, 6. However, when a workers' compensation claim has prescribed on its face, the burden is upon the claimant to prove the facts showing that the running of prescription was interrupted or suspended in some manner.

  2. Winford v. Conerly Corp.

    897 So. 2d 560 (La. 2005)   Cited 80 times
    Allowing relation back when the original petition provided defendant "fair notice of the factual situation out of which the amended petition arose"

    Scott v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc., 03-0104 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/2/03) 851 So.2d 1210, 1214; (see Boudreaux v. Angelo Iafrate Const., 02-0992 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2003) 848 So.2d 3, 7). The second is the date of medical diagnosis where the diagnosis notifies a previously unaware injured employee of a disabling condition.

  3. Johnson v. Stanton's Appliance, LLC

    2024 CW 0442 (La. Ct. App. Jul. 29, 2024)

    Where such payments have been made in any case, this limitation shall not take effect until the expiration of three years from the time of making the last payment of medical benefits." This court has noted that the legislature has not provided for a developing injury exception to the commencement of prescription on a claim for medical benefits, as it has done for a claim for weekly benefits in La. R.S. 23:1209(A). SeeBoudreaux v. Angelo lafrate Construction, 2002-0992 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2/14/03), 848 So.2d 3, 8 n.3. Johnson's claim for medical benefits was filed on August 18, 2023 and was not made within one year of the date of the July 13, 2022 accident.

  4. Pitre v. Buddy's Seafood

    102 So. 3d 815 (La. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 8 times

    In order to resolve the prescription issue, it is necessary to determine whether Mr. Pitre's condition was of a developmental nature. This is a question of fact, which must be determined from the testimony and evidence in the record before us. Boudreaux v. Angelo Iafrate Const., 02–0992, p. 4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/14/03), 848 So.2d 3, 7. Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1209A provides that an injury not resulting at the time of, or developing immediately after, the accident is a developing injury. Generally speaking, development of the injury actually means development of the disability, and disability marks the time from which it is clear that the employee is no longer able to perform the duties of his or her employment in a satisfactory manner.

  5. Manucy v. Racing

    34 So. 3d 994 (La. Ct. App. 2010)

    Scott v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc., 03-0104 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/2/03) 851 So.2d 1210, 1214; (see Boudreaux v. Angelo Iafrate Const, 02-0992 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2003) 848 So.2d 3, 7). The second is the date of medical diagnosis where the diagnosis notifies a previously unaware injured employee of a disabling condition.

  6. Huckaby v. Bellsouth

    961 So. 2d 651 (La. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 4 times

    Winford, supra, citing Scott v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2003-0104 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/2/03), 851 So.2d 1210; Boudreaux v. Angela Iafrate Const, 2002-0992 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/14/03), 848 So.2d 3. The second is the date of medical diagnosis where the diagnosis notifies a previously unaware injured employee of a disabling condition.

  7. Warren v. Action Oil Rec.

    944 So. 2d 615 (La. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 1 times

    Thus, it is clear from the record before us that although Mr. Warren may have been fully aware of the extent of his injury or physical condition as early as October 2001, when Dr. Fairies discussed the results of the MRI scan with him and his treatment options, it is equally clear that he only became aware of or realized that the significance of his condition was such that he could no longer perform his job duties when Dr. Landreneau ordered him to stop working on November 20, 2002. As observed by this court in Boudreaux v. Angela Iafrate Construction, 02-0992, p. 5 (La.App. 1st Cir.2/14/03), 848 So.2d 3, 7: In the case of the retained employee who continues to work with symptoms which might have been held to be disabling (if litigated), but which did not become manifestly disabling to the employee until he was physically forced to quit his work, the disability does not become manifest or "develop" until that date, because to select an earlier date would be dealing in conjecture.

  8. Boudreaux v. Angelo Ifrt.

    895 So. 2d 596 (La. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 6 times

    However, the dismissal of Boudreaux's disputed claim for indemnity benefits was reversed, and the matter was remanded to afford Boudreaux the opportunity to amend his disputed claim form to set forth facts that might overcome the grounds of the objection of prescription. Boudreaux v. Angelo Iafrate Construction, 02-0992 (La.App. 1st Cir.2/14/03), 848 So.2d 3, 8. On remand, Boudreaux filed an "Amended Complaint-1008" which was written in the style of a memorandum, but nonetheless included additional allegations of fact.

  9. Cooper v. St. Tammany

    862 So. 2d 1001 (La. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 22 times

    See Stobart v. State, through Dep't of Transp. Dev., 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La. 1993); Boudreaux v. Angelo Iafrate Const., 02-0992 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2/14/03), 848 So.2d 3, 6. In applying this standard, the appellate court must determine not whether the trier of fact was right or wrong, but whether its conclusion was a reasonable one.

  10. Iverstine v. Albemarle

    852 So. 2d 492 (La. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 4 times

    [W]hen the injury does not result at the time of, or develop immediately after the accident, the limitation shall not take effect until expiration of one year from the time the injury develops, but in all such cases the claim for payment shall be forever barred unless the proceedings have been begun within two years from the date of the accident. In Boudreaux v. Angelo Iafrate Const., 02-0992 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/14/03), 848 So.2d 3, this court addressed the concept of when a developing injury becomes disabling to a claimant as follows: The jurisprudence offers guidelines for establishing when a developing injury has reached the disabling point for purposes of applicability of this exception to the one-year prescriptive period.