Poche v. Frazier, 236 So. 2d 36 (La. 1970). · Go Syfert
Poche v. Frazier, 236 So. 2d 36 (La. 1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
53 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: In Re Medical Review Panel Bilello (lactapp, 1993-05-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" In Re Medical Review Panel Bilello (2×)
La. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Poche v. Frazier, 232 So.2d 851 (La.App. 4th Cir.1970), writ denied, 256 La. 266 , 236 So.2d 36 (1970).
discussed Cited "see" McKenzie v. Alton Ochsner Medical Foundation (2×)
La. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Poche v. Frazier, 232 So.2d 851 (La.App. 4th Cir.1970), writ denied, 256 La. 266 , 236 So.2d 36 (1970).
discussed Cited "see" Edwards v. Lewis Grocery Co. (2×)
La. Ct. App. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Poche v. Frazier, 232 So.2d 851 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1970), writ denied 256 La. 266 , 236 So.2d 36 ; Wilson v. MaGee, 359 So.2d 315 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1978); Billedeaux v. Adams, 355 So.2d 1345 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1978); and Sikes v. McLean Trucking Company, 383 So.2d 111 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1980).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Eugene J. POCHE, Jr., Et Al.
v.
Bobby FRAZIER Et Al.
50533.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Jun 8, 1970.
236 So. 2d 36
Summers.
Published

The application is denied. There appears no error of law in the judgment complained of and according to the facts, as found by the Court of Appeal, the judgment is correct. However, plaintiffs’ right to recover all or any medical expenses incurred since the trial of the case is reserved.

SUMMERS, Justice, is of the opinion the writ should be granted. In granting the right to claim future medical expenses this Court has reversed the Court of Appeal finding that there was no proof to support that claim. The Court’s action is taken on the basis of an application for writs without the benefit of the record evidence, an action unprecedented in the jurisprudence of this Court. Moreover, no plausible or convincing reason is assigned by the Court of Appeal for reducing the awards, and that action of the Court should be reviewed.