You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Rebel Distributors Corp. v. LUBA

Citations: 137 So. 3d 108; 12 La.App. 3 Cir. 916; 2014 La. App. LEXIS 877; 2014 WL 1329733Docket: No. 12-916

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; April 2, 2014; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The judgment of the workers' compensation judge is affirmed in the case of Rebel Distributors, Inc. v. LUBA Workers’ Compensation, referencing case number 12-909 from the Louisiana Court of Appeal on April 2, 2014. The appellate court ordered that the costs of the appeal be shared equally between the plaintiff, Rebel Distributors Corp. Inc. (doing business as Physician Partner and Pharmacy Partner), and the defendants, LUBA Casualty Insurance Company and Prejean’s Wholesale Meats, Inc. Chief Judge Thibodeaux dissents in part, providing written reasons, but this dissent does not apply to cases numbered 12-923 and 12-924.

Legal Issues Addressed

Apportionment of Appeal Costs

Application: The appellate court determined that the costs of the appeal must be shared equally between the plaintiff and the defendants.

Reasoning: The appellate court ordered that the costs of the appeal be shared equally between the plaintiff, Rebel Distributors Corp. Inc. (doing business as Physician Partner and Pharmacy Partner), and the defendants, LUBA Casualty Insurance Company and Prejean’s Wholesale Meats, Inc.

Judicial Affirmation of Workers' Compensation Judge's Decision

Application: The appellate court affirmed the decision made by the workers' compensation judge, indicating agreement with the lower court's ruling.

Reasoning: The judgment of the workers' compensation judge is affirmed in the case of Rebel Distributors, Inc. v. LUBA Workers’ Compensation.

Judicial Dissent in Appellate Decisions

Application: Chief Judge Thibodeaux dissented in part, indicating partial disagreement with the majority opinion, although this dissent did not extend to related cases.

Reasoning: Chief Judge Thibodeaux dissents in part, providing written reasons, but this dissent does not apply to cases numbered 12-923 and 12-924.