# Supreme **C ourt**  **o f**  **Lo uisiana** 

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #046

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
The Opinions handed down on the **22nd day of September, 2017** , are as follows:

**PER CURIAM** :
2016 -C-1 443 JOHN W. SMITH v. HIGHLINES CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., AND THE GRAY INSURANCE COMPANY In light of our opinion in Burgess v. Sewerage & Water Bo ard of New Orleans, 16

- 2267 (La. 6/29/17), ___ So. 3d ___, the judgment of the court of appeal is vacated and set aside insofar as it finds claimant was not entitled to reimbursement. The case is remanded to the Office of Workers’ Compensation for a determination, consistent with the interpretation of La. R.S. 23:1203(A) set forth in Burgess, of whether the out

- of

- state pharmacy’s services were not available in Louisiana or whether the out

- of

- state pharmacy can provide services for comparable costs to those of a Louisiana pharmacy. In all other respects, the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed. WEIMER, J., dissents and assigns reasons. GENOVESE, J., concurs in the result and assigns reasons.SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 2016-C-1443 JOHN W. SMITH VERSUS HIGHLINES CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., AND THE GRAY INSURANCE COMPANY ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND CIRCUIT, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DISTRICT 1E
PER CURIAM In light of our opinion in Burgess v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans , 16-2267 (La. 6/29/17), ___ So. 3d ___, the judgment of the court of appeal is vacated and set aside insofar as it finds claimant was not entitled to reimbursement. The case is remanded to the Office of Workers’ Compensation for a determination, consistent with the interpretation of La. R.S. 23:1203(A) set forth in Burgess , of whether the out-of-state pharmacy’s services were not available in Louisiana or whether the out-of-state pharmacy can provide services for comparable costs to those of a Louisiana pharmacy. In all other respects, the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed. 9/22/17

### 0 9/2 2 /1 7 SUPREM E CO URT O F LO UISIANA
No . 2 01 6 -C-1 44 3 J OHN W . SMI TH VERSUS HI GHLI NES CONSTRUCTI ON CO., I NC., AND THE GRAY I N SURANCE COMPANY On W r it o f Cer t i o r a r i t o t h e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l , S eco n d Ci r cu i t , Of f i ce o f W o r ker s ’ Co mp en s a t i o n Di st ri ct 1 E
W EI MER, J . , d i ss en t i n g . Hav i n g g ran t ed t h e wri t o f cert i o rari i n t h i s m at t er, I wo u l d i s s u e a fu ll o p i n i o n b as ed u p o n t h e reco rd b efo re t hi s co u rt
.09/22/17

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 2016 - C - 1443 JOHN W. SMITH VERSUS HIGHLINES CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. AND THE GRAY INSURANCE COMPANY ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND CIRCUIT, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DISTRICT 1E GENOVESE, J., concurs in the result and assigns reasons. I concur with the majority’s remand only to the extent of having the Office of Worker’s Compensation determine whether the out
- of

- state pharmacy services were not available in Louisiana or whether the out

- of

- st ate pharmacy can provide services for comparable costs to those of a Louisiana pharmacy. In all other respects, and particularly with respect to the issue of choice of pharmacy in a worker’s compensation case, I main tain the position which I previously art iculated i n my dissent in Burgess v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, 16

- 2268 (La. 6/29/17) , __ So.3d __, that the choice of pharmacy does not necessarily rest with the employer.