
    John W. SMITH v. HIGHLINES CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., and The Gray Insurance Company
    No. 2016-C-1443
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    9/22/2017
   ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND CIRCUIT, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DISTRICT IE

PER CURIAM

hln light of our opinion in Burgess v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, 16-2267 (La. 6/29/17), 225 So.3d 1020, 2017 WL 2836062, 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.

GENOVESE; J.,

concurs in the result and assigns reasons.

hi 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-state 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 maintain the position which I previously articulated in my dissent in Burgess v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, 16-2267 (La. 6/29/17), 225 So.3d 1020, 2017 WL 2836062, that the choice of pharmacy does not necessarily rest with the employer.

WEIMER, J.,

dissenting.

11 Having granted the writ of certiorari in this matter, I would issue a full opinion based upon the record before this court.  