# Rebel Distributors Corp. v. LUBA Workers' Comp.

> Louisiana Court of Appeal · April 2, 2014 · 12 La.App. 3 Cir. 909

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4811018

## Case

- **Full name:** REBEL DISTRIBUTORS CORP., INC. d/b/a Physician Partner and Pharmacy Partner (Mary Doucet) v. LUBA WORKERS' COMP.
- **Court:** Louisiana Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** April 2, 2014
- **Citations:** 12 La.App. 3 Cir. 909; 137 So. 3d 91; 2014 La. App. LEXIS 855; 2014 WL 1317609
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Thibodeaux
- **Judges:** Amy, Assigns, Exceptions, Peters, Reasons, Thibodeaux
- **Cited by:** 26 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4811018

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that “[t]he only parties having a right of action to raise this [choice of pharmacy] issue are the employee, Ms. Doucet, and, possibly, the employer/insurer,”

## Opinion text

THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge,
dissenting in part.
hThe majority affirms the judgment of the Office of Workers’ Compensation limiting the payment of the outstanding pharmacy bill to $750.00 pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1142. In my view, that is erroneous.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1142(B)(1) and (B)(2)(a) repeatedly refer to “diagnostic testing” and “treatment.” It does not, as the majority opinion concedes, include prescription medication as part of nonemergency diagnostic testing or treatment. The diagnostic testing and treatment are the only matters that are subject to the $750.00 cap, not medication.
The more specific provisions of Part II of Chapter 10 entitled “Benefits” should properly apply. Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1203(A)(B)(D) and (E) all specifically refer to “drugs,” “supplies,” or “services.” The majority, in my view, is interpreting La.R.S. 23:1203 much too restrictively and focuses undue attention on references to “employer” and “employee.”
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent in part.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4811018. Public record. Not legal advice.