offset claim in Louisiana

2019App. 5 Cir. 11/26/96), 685 So.2d 306 , 310 (citations omitted)-a case instructive on this issue-the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, relying on Saxena , supra , affirmed summary judgment, finding that the defendant's unliquidated claim against the plaintiff could not be used as an offset to bar the plaintiff's right of recovery on its liquidated claim. 13 In National Gypsum Co. , the plaintiff, National Gypsum, filed suit on an open account for the sum of $ 208,724.14, which represented the unpaid amount for materials it had supplied to the defendant, Ace.

2019App. 5 Cir. 11/26/96), 685 So.2d 306 , 310 (citations omitted)-a case instructive on this issue-the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, relying on Saxena , supra , affirmed summary judgment, finding that the defendant's unliquidated claim against the plaintiff could not be used as an offset to bar the plaintiff's right of recovery on its liquidated claim. 13 In National Gypsum Co. , the plaintiff, National Gypsum, filed suit on an open account for the sum of $ 208,724.14, which represented the unpaid amount for materials it had supplied to the defendant, Ace.

2019App. 5 Cir. 11/26/96), 685 So.2d 306 , 310 (citations omitted)-a case instructive on this issue-the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, relying on Saxena , supra , affirmed summary judgment, finding that the defendant's unliquidated claim against the plaintiff could not be used as an offset to bar the plaintiff's right of recovery on its liquidated claim. 13 In National Gypsum Co. , the plaintiff, National Gypsum, filed suit on an open account for the sum of $ 208,724.14, which represented the unpaid amount for materials it had supplied to the defendant, Ace.

2019App. 5 Cir. 11/26/96), 685 So.2d 306 , 310 (citations omitted)-a case instructive on this issue-the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, relying on Saxena , supra , affirmed summary judgment, finding that the defendant's unliquidated claim against the plaintiff could not be used as an offset to bar the plaintiff's right of recovery on its liquidated claim. 13 In National Gypsum Co. , the plaintiff, National Gypsum, filed suit on an open account for the sum of $ 208,724.14, which represented the unpaid amount for materials it had supplied to the defendant, Ace.

2012In Principal Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Progressive United Corp., 28378 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/8/96), 674 So.2d 1073 , writ denied, 96-1474 (La.9/20/96), 679 So.2d 436 , a health insurer sought to have Section 1205 applied retroactively to recover medical expenses it paid for an employee injured in the course and scope of his employment.

2012In Principal Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Progressive United Corp., 28378 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/8/96), 674 So.2d 1073 , writ denied, 96-1474 (La.9/20/96), 679 So.2d 436 , a health insurer sought to have Section 1205 applied retroactively to recover medical expenses it paid for an employee injured in the course and scope of his employment.

2012They claim that their position is mandated by the binding Louisiana Supreme Court authority espoused in Gagnard v. Baldridge, 612 So.2d 732 (La.1993).

1994In Matthews v. City of Alexandria, 587 So.2d 799 (La.App. 3d Cir.1991), writ granted on other grounds, 592 So.2d 1285 (La.1992), we did not follow the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal’s holding in Behmke v. K-Mart, supra. Instead, in applying the January 1, 1990 amendment to LSA-R.S. 23:1225(C)(1), we stated it simply reflected the original meaning and intent of the statute.

1994In Matthews v. City of Alexandria, 587 So.2d 799 (La.App. 3d Cir.1991), writ granted on other grounds, 592 So.2d 1285 (La.1992), we did not follow the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal’s holding in Behmke v. K-Mart, supra. Instead, in applying the January 1, 1990 amendment to LSA-R.S. 23:1225(C)(1), we stated it simply reflected the original meaning and intent of the statute.

1994Citing the Lambert decision and Behmke v. K-Mart, 581 So.2d 291 (La.App. 5th Cir.1991), decisions holding the later amendments to LSA-R.S. 23:1225(C)(1) should not apply retroactively, appellant points out that Mr. Le-Blanc’s injury pre-dated the effective dates of the amendments and argues the hearing officer erred in granting the employer’s offset claim for social security benefits paid to him because he is not receiving remuneration from all four sources listed in the statute.

1994In Matthews v. City of Alexandria, 587 So.2d 799 (La.App. 3d Cir.1991), writ granted on other grounds, 592 So.2d 1285 (La.1992), we did not follow the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal’s holding in Behmke v. K-Mart, supra. Instead, in applying the January 1, 1990 amendment to LSA-R.S. 23:1225(C)(1), we stated it simply reflected the original meaning and intent of the statute.

1932In Louisiana Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children v. Board of Levee Commissioners of Orleans Levee District, 143 La. 90 , 78 So. 249, 254 , the Supreme Court said: “In Shreveport R.

1932In Louisiana Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children v. Board of Levee Commissioners of Orleans Levee District, 143 La. 90 , 78 So. 249, 254 , the Supreme Court said: “In Shreveport R.