Tina Ford VS Sodexho
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CA 0182 TINA FORD A VERSUS SODEXHO INC Judgment Rendered AUG 2 2010 APPEALED FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION DISTRICT 9 STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 08 00928 THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH C LANIER JUDGE Joseph J Weigand Jr Houma Louisiana Attorney for PlaintiffAppellee Philip J Borne Attorneys for DefendantAppellant Sodexho Inc Scott R Samuel Tina Ford New Orleans Louisiana BEFORE PARRO KUHN AND McDONALD JJ McDONALD J The plaintiff Tina Ford worked as a dining room attendant for Sodexho Inc Sodexho in Thibodaux On February 27 2004 while Ms Ford was at work standing on a ladder and lifting a bucket of ice she injured her back Ms Ford filed a disputed claim for compensation on January 24 2008 asserting that there was a dispute over her wage benefits medical bills and a medical procedure In its answer Sodexho asserted that Ms Ford had received all the benefits to which she was entitled On February 6 2009 the matter went to trial Thereafter the workers compensation judge WCJ ruled authorizing Ms Ford back surgery awarding s supplemental earnings benefits SEBs for some time periods and awarding Ms Ford 2 in penalties and 5 in attorney fees for Sodexho 00 000 00 000 s termination of indemnity benefits when Ms Ford was entitled to receive SEBs Sodexho appealed that judgment asserting that the WCJ erred in finding that back surgery was reasonable and medically necessary erred in finding that Ms Ford was entitled to SEBs for certain time periods after she returned to work for Sodexho in January of 2006 erred in finding that Sodexho was arbitrary and capricious in not paying for Ms Ford SEBs after her return to work and erred in s awarding Ms Ford penalties and attorney fees Ms Ford answered the appeal asserting that the WCJ erred in failing to find that she was entitled to SEBs during the time period that she was enrolled in college and further requesting attorney fees for the appeal A review of the record shows extensive reasons for judgment by the WCJ Regarding the need for back surgery there was a disagreement among doctors as to whether back surgery was needed Dr A Delmar Walker Jr an orthopedist The parties stipulated that Ms Ford average weekly wage on the day of the accident was s 60 301 2 recommended weight reduction and exercise Dr Michael S Haydel a pain management specialist treated Ms Ford with steroid injections and referred her to Dr Michael A LaSalle an orthopedist for surgical consideration Dr LaSalle recommended weight loss and exercise and thought surgery would not be beneficial Dr Chris Cenac Jr an orthopedist recommended a microdiscectomy and described it as the least invasive type of surgery that could be done Because of the disagreement among doctors the WCJ appointed an independent medical examiner Dr James C Butler an orthopedist Dr Butler questioned whether the surgery would provide Ms Ford with relief and recommended conservative treatment instead of surgery However as noted by the WCJ Ms Ford had been undergoing conservative treatment for five years without much improvement We conclude it was not clearly wrong for the WCJ to choose Dr Cenac opinion over s that of other doctors Regarding the SEBs the WCJ gave an exhaustive analysis and computation of why SEBs were awarded for the time periods that they were given After a review of the record we find no manifest error in that determination Further regarding the award of penalties and attorney fees to Ms Ford we find no manifest error in that determination by the WCJ Ms Ford request for additional attorney fees is s denied Thus for the foregoing reasons the judgment of the WCJ is affirmed Costs are assessed against Sodexho This opinion is issued in compliance with the Uniform Rules Louisiana Courts of Appeal Rule 2 16 A 5 6 and 8 24 AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
