Sigler v. Rand’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[The employee] takes issue with [his employer’s] reason for its action and asserts that in any event [his employer] was not entitled to cho[o]se the pharmaceutical provider for his medications, citing Louisiana Clinic v. Patin’s Tire Service, 98-1973 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/5/99) , 731 So.2d 525 . Patin’s involved the administration of an MRI by a certain healthcare provider, Louisiana Clinic. The employer and workers’ compensation insurer in that case authorized the MRI but refused to authorize Louisiana Clinic to administer the diagnostic test. We explained: ‘We have found no authority that allows the employer or insurer to dictate the place and physician to perform diagnostic testing ordered by a treating physician.” Id. at 528 . Because the administration of medical diagnostic testing, the type of equipment used, and the interpretation of the results obtained from the testing involve individual skill levels and perhaps comfort levels for patients, we find that Pa-tin’s does not apply to the circumstances of this case. Unlike in the Patin’s case, the medication [the employee] obtained was the same regardless of which pharmaceutical company provided it. Thus, we do not find that [the employer] violated its obligation to [the employee] simply because it chose to have his prescriptions filled by a different pharmaceutical company.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 167 So. 3d 875 - Downs v. Chateau Living Center · Burgess v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans

2. “[t]he determination of whether an employer should be cast with penalties and attorney fees is a question of fact which should not be reversed absent manifest error.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Maricle v. Sunbelt Builders, Inc. · 929 So. 2d 258 - Romero v. Garan's, Inc.

3. “`[t]he determination of whether an employer should be cast with penalties and attorney fees is a question of fact which should not be reversed absent manifest error.' Sigler v. Rand, 04-1138, pp. 10-11 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/29/04) , 896 So.2d 189, 196 , writ denied, 05-278 (La.4/1/05), 897 So.2d 611 (citing Romero v. Northrop-Grumman, 01-24 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/30/01) , 787 So.2d 1149 , writ denied, 01-1937 (La.10/26/01), 799 So.2d 1144 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 939 So. 2d 662 - Broussard v. Lafayette Parish School Bd.