crucial inquiry in Louisiana

2023Redler, 979 So.2d at 516 .

2023Redler, 979 So.2d at 516 .

2014Bd., 06-1088, p. 10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/7/07), 950 So.2d 902, 909 , writ denied, 07-832 (La.6/15/07), 958 So.2d 1190 ).

2012Bd., 06-1088, p. 10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/7/07), 950 So.2d 902, 909 , writ denied, 07-832 (La.6/15/07), 958 So.2d 1190 .

2014Bd., 06-1088, p. 10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/7/07), 950 So.2d 902, 909 , writ denied, 07-832 (La.6/15/07), 958 So.2d 1190 ).

2012Bd., 06-1088, p. 10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/7/07), 950 So.2d 902, 909 , writ denied, 07-832 (La.6/15/07), 958 So.2d 1190 .

2012In determining the factual issue of whether an employer’s actions are arbitrary and capricious, the manifest error standard of review is applied, and the crucial inquiry is “whether the employer can articulate an objective reason for discontinuing benefits at the time it took the action.” Frith v. Riverwood, 2004-1086, p. 12 (La.1/19/05), 892 So.2d 7, 15 .

2011In determining the factual issue of whether an employer’s actions are arbitrary and capricious, the manifest error standard of review is applied, and the crucial inquiry is “whether the employer can articulate an objective reason for discontinuing benefits at the time it took the action.” Frith v. Riverwood, 04-1086, p. 12 (La.1/19/05), 892 So.2d 7, 15 .

2015Lexington has not pointed to an objective reason for terminating the benefits at the time of the termination, which is the crucial inquiry: Williams ; 24 So.3d 970 .

2014In determining whether a defendant’s actions are arbitrary and capricious under La.R.S. 23:1201(1), “the crucial inquiry is whether the employer can articulate an objective reason for terminating benefits at the time of the termination.” Williams v. Tioga Manor Nursing Home, 09-417, p. 22 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/18/09), 24 So.3d 970, 984 , writ denied, 10-298 (La.4/09/10), 31 So.3d 389 (quoting Dogal v. Vernon Parish Sch.

2006Id.; Authement v. Wal-Mart, 857 So.2d at 574 .

2006Authement v. Wal-Mart, 02-2434 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/26/03) , 857 So.2d 564, 574 .

2016Leon v. Moore, 98-1792, p. 4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/1/99), 731 So.2d 502, 504 , writ denied, 99-1294 (La.7/2/99), 747 So.2d 20 .

2012Leon v. Moore, 98-1792, p. 4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/1/99), 731 So.2d 502, 504 , writ denied. 99-1294 (La.7/2/99), 747 So.2d 20 .

2016Leon v. Moore, 98-1792, p. 4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/1/99), 731 So.2d 502, 504 , writ denied, 99-1294 (La.7/2/99), 747 So.2d 20 .

2012Leon v. Moore, 98-1792, p. 4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/1/99), 731 So.2d 502, 504 , writ denied. 99-1294 (La.7/2/99), 747 So.2d 20 .

2014In determining whether a defendant’s actions are arbitrary and capricious under La.R.S. 23:1201(1), “the crucial inquiry is whether the employer can articulate an objective reason for terminating benefits at the time of the termination.” Williams v. Tioga Manor Nursing Home, 09-417, p. 22 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/18/09), 24 So.3d 970, 984 , writ denied, 10-298 (La.4/09/10), 31 So.3d 389 (quoting Dogal v. Vernon Parish Sch.

2011In determining whether a defendant’s actions are arbitrary and capricious under La.R.S. 23:1201(1), “the crucial inquiry is whether the employer can articulate an objective reason for terminating benefits at the time of the termination.” Williams v. Tioga Manor Nursing Home, 09-417, p. 22 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/18/09), 24 So.3d 970, 984 , writ denied, 10-298 (La.4/09/10), 31 So.3d 389 (quoting Doyal v. Vernon Parish Sch.

1994Rather our examination of Article 893 in comparison with other statutes with similar objectives indicates that the crucial inquiry is whether a defendant has been convicted of a felony before he committed the offense resulting in the sentence under consideration.” Id. at 672 .

1986Accordingly, under La.C.Cr.P. art. 893 and the rationale of State v. Wimberly, supra, Adams was eligible to be considered for a suspended sentence.

2026“To reasonably controvert a claim, an employer must have sufficient factual and medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information provided by the employee.” McCarty v. State, Off. of Risk Mgmt., 94-033, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/5/94), 643 So.2d 886, 889 .

2022App. 2 Cir. 2/28/18), 246 So. 3d 681 ; Smith, supra; Maxwell, supra. The crucial inquiry in determining whether to impose penalties and attorney fees is whether the payor had an articulable and objective reason to deny payment at the time it took action.

2022Lafayette Bone & Joint Clinic v. Louisiana United Business SIF, 15-2137 (La. 6/29/16), 194 So. 3d 1112 .

2020Lewis v. Temple Inland, 2011- 0729, pp. 6- 7 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 11/ 9/ 11), 80 So. 3d 52, 58 .

2019Lafayette Bone & Joint Clinic, supra; Authement, supra. See also Brown v. Texas–LA Cartage, Inc., 98- 1063 (La. 12/01/98), 721 So. 2d 885, 890 ; Arrant, supra; Koenig v. Christus Schumpert Health Sys., 44,244 (La.

2018This Court's decisions in Ball and, more recently, State v. Coleman , 14-0402 (La. 2/26/16), 188 So.3d 174 , are instructive as to the level of specificity allowed when presenting the factual circumstances of a case to a potential juror during death qualification.

2015The crucial inquiry is whether the employer has articulable and objective reason for denying or discontinuing benefits at the time it took that action.” Craig v. Bantek W., Inc., 04-229, p. 7 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/17/04), 885 So.2d 1241, 1246 .

2014Id.

2013The crucial inquiry is whether the employer had an articulable and objective reason for denying or discontinuing benefits at the time it took that action. [Citations omitted.] Richert v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 11-1099, pp. 9-10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/28/12), 97 So.3d 487, 493 , writ denied, 2012-1760 (La. 11/2/12), 99 So.3d 677 . | ^Considering the Reasons for Judgment given by the workers’ compensation judge, we are unable to find the court was manifestly erroneous in determining the employer here did not reasonably controvert the claim and, hence, that the claimant is entitled to statutory pen

2013The crucial inquiry is whether the employer had an articulable and objective reason for denying or discontinuing benefits at the time it took that action. [Citations omitted.] Richert v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 11-1099, pp. 9-10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/28/12), 97 So.3d 487, 493 , writ denied, 2012-1760 (La. 11/2/12), 99 So.3d 677 . | ^Considering the Reasons for Judgment given by the workers’ compensation judge, we are unable to find the court was manifestly erroneous in determining the employer here did not reasonably controvert the claim and, hence, that the claimant is entitled to statutory pen

2013Id.

2012Rather, the crucial inquiry is whether the notice was “sent by mail or other means certain to ensure actual notice if the party’s name and address are reasonable ascertainable.” Lewis v. Succession of Johnson, 2005-1192, p. 7 (La.4/4/06), 925 So.2d 1172, 1172 , citing Mennonite, supra, 462 U.S. at 800 , 103 S.Ct. 2706 .

2012Rather, the crucial inquiry is whether the notice was “sent by mail or other means certain to ensure actual notice if the party’s name and address are reasonable ascertainable.” Lewis v. Succession of Johnson, 2005-1192, p. 7 (La.4/4/06), 925 So.2d 1172, 1172 , citing Mennonite, supra, 462 U.S. at 800 , 103 S.Ct. 2706 .

2012Rather, the crucial inquiry is whether the notice was “sent by mail or other means certain to ensure actual notice if the party’s name and address are reasonable ascertainable.” Lewis v. Succession of Johnson, 2005-1192, p. 7 (La.4/4/06), 925 So.2d 1172, 1172 , citing Mennonite, supra, 462 U.S. at 800 , 103 S.Ct. 2706 .

2011See La.Civ.Code art. 2027; Thompson , 525 So.2d 174 .

2011Life Flight of New Orleans v. Homrighausen, 2005-2538 (La.App. 1st Cir.12/28/06), 952 So.2d 45, 52 , writ denied, 2007-0558 (La.5/4/07), 956 So.2d 615 .

2011Irving v. Transit Mgmt. of SE La., Inc., 10-0360 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/20/10) , 44 So.3d 796, 799-800 .