
    REBEL DISTRIBUTORS CORP., INC. d/b/a Physician Partner and Pharmacy Partner (Mary Doucet) v. LUBA.
    No. 12-927.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
    April 2, 2014.
    Harry K. Burdette, The Glenn Armentor Law Corporation, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Rebel Distributors Corporation, Inc. d/b/a Physician Partner and Pharmacy Partner.
    W. Michael Adams, Stacey D. Williams, Blanchard, Walker, O’Quinn & Roberts, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Rebel Distributors Corporation, Inc. d/b/a Physician Partner and Pharmacy Partner.
    Jeffrey C. Napolitano, Juge, Napolitano, Guilbeau, Ruli & Frieman, Metairie, LA, For Defendant/Appellee, Luba Casualty Insurance Company.
    Court composed of ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge, JIMMIE C. PETERS, and MARC T. AMY, Judges.
   PETERS, J.

IjFor the reasons assigned in Rebel Distributors, Inc. v. LUBA Workers’ Compensation, 12-909 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/2/14), 137 So.3d 91, 2014 WL 1317609, we affirm the judgment of the workers’ compensation judge in all respects. We assess costs of this appeal equally between the plaintiff, Rebel Distributors Corp., Inc. d/b/a Physician Partner and Pharmacy Partner, and the defendant, LUBA Casualty Insurance Company.

AFFIRMED.

THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge,

dissenting in part.

|TThe 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.  