883 So. 2d 502 - Manuel v. Northrop-Grumman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]n Partin v. Merchants & Farmers Bank, 01-1560, p. 12 (La.3/11/02), 810 So.2d 1118, 1125 , the supreme court explained that La. R.S. 23:1021 [(8)(b)] “is not so much a definition of mental injury as it is a definition of compensable mental injury.” Importantly, “a mental injury is compensable depending upon the type of stress which triggers that injury.” Id. (emphasis added). Specifically, “the legislature intended that the nature of the stress itself be evaluated, rather than the stress being evaluated from the employee’s perspective.” Id. (emphasis added). As pointed out by the supreme court, “[i]f the stress were evaluated from the employee’s perspective, much wider recovery would result under subsection [ (8)(b) ] because nearly every employee would consider extraordinary a stress that caused him mental injury.” Id. The supreme court concluded that “the legislature intended to restrict recovery under subsection [ (8)(b) ] to those mental injuries that result from stresses which, by their nature, are sudden, unexpected, and extraordinary in the usual course of employment in that working environment.” Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 37 So. 3d 1095 - Fontenot v. INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR CO.

2. “Mental injury or illness resulting from work-related stress shall not be considered a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment and is not compensable pursuant to this Chapter, unless the mental injury was the result of a sudden, unexpected, and extraordinary stress related to the employment and is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 37 So. 3d 1095 - Fontenot v. INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR CO.