Cynthia McIntyre VS Rouse's Enterprises, L.L.C.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CA 0083 CYNTHIA McINTYRE VERSUS ROUSE S ENTERPRISES LLC DA TE OF JUDGMENT SEP 1 4 2009 ON APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION NUMBER 06 06823 DISTRICT SIX STATE OF LOUISIANA ROBERT W VARNADO JR Hugh Exnicios B Folsom Louisiana Michael E OWC Counsel for Claimant Appellant Cynthia Mcintyre Holoway Mandeville Louisiana Carlos E Lazarus Jr Houma Louisiana BEFORE Disposition AFFIRMED Counsel for Defendant Rouse s Enterprises Appellee L LC PARRO KUHN AND McDONALD n KUHN J Claimant Office of Workers Administration Compensation employer defendant claims for designation of a physician benefits Deventer disabled a Rouse appellee was as a that avers her choice of in favor of her former Rouse dismissing s medical benefits and physician bona tide eHort to return her fall that provided of Dr name This duly supported by is factual s erroneous 6 30 00 See findings van to the was she selected the finding in 1 2 determining failing to her indemnity where hospital her with a an v 3 list of three the evidence Indus Sawyer Paul van finding that Rouse s McIntyre received emergency including McIntyre the evidence Plastics from which physicians for follow up treatment orthopedist duly supp0l1ed by Edwards Dr I work Deventer that conclude that she remains result of the December 29 2004 accident and treatment after her Inc are s not 99 2676 testimony manifestly p 9 La 765 So 2d 328 332 McIntyre treated 2005 L LC of her choice OWC erred OWC determined that it OWC Enterprise s OWC We affirm McIntyre made the judgment of the Louisiana appellant Cynthia McIntyre appeals Although Rosalind van Deventer from she testified that she Cropper McIntyre provided admitted that she treatment with Dr never rendered by submitted Dr a receiving medical was evidence no request to Rouse Cropper Mclntyre I Although McIntyre lists numerous assignments consequently the others are considered abandoned 2 January 2005 until August saw no of error for payment of any medical other health only Dr support that claim and to s treatment from care providers three have been briefed See La UReA Rule 2 4 12 and until 2006 when April who released her to Deventer medical that improvement McIntyre requested McIntyre Because and to whom concluded that he is 23 2 B 2 van lower to Deventer back of regarded s on McIntyre some disc any disc herniation his physical exam Oeventer s s back see or acute notes 2 by May Dr also was Rouse s 18 John 2007 Logan orthopedist an owe correctly See La treating physician The release s sedentary work revealed that January 2 After 17 2005 no any evidence of acute compression of the R S opined complaints of back April 20 2006 reviewing van MRI studies Oeventer joints mostly noted at L4 5 pathology expressly ruling cord that she had to see or nerves a Based lumbar strain him in on Dr May June and pain treatment from Dr work on McIntyre complained or Dr spinal Logan commencing review of MRI studies conducted on that day on May 18 showed diminished duty by McIntyre s treating physician supports owes finding that her right knee did not give rise to a disability due to a work related injury on May 18 2007 when she sought additional medical treatment from Dr Logan who deferred his medical assessment of her knee to Dr van Deventer Moreover at the commencement of the hearing s counsel conceded that the aneurysm from which she suffered and that McIntyre precluded Dr van Deventer s treatment of her knee until evaluated by a vascular surgeon was not a preexisting condition that had been aggravated by the accident to sedentary duty and aI1hritis in the facet revealed that while she returned McIntyre sought medical Logan on and the MRI studies he August 2005 she voiced Dr to first two visits her degeneration out 2007 her choice of until was not who to van she had reached maximum 0I1hopedist Oeventer directed deposition testimony and L5 S 1 levels and did not van as It another van releasing McIntyre pain during undertaken findings Dr knee Dr to a In addition Dr by specifically not was right treatment from treated was she sedentary duty opining for her back and she returned parties of the by agreement 3 disc space L5 S 1 height level at L4 5 Based and L5 S I levels with facet on concluded that the condition of to the December 29 showed were McIntyre 2004 fall 2005 the findings study preexisting condition of her back by May complaints 2005 of back had as a pain to resolved was same was the by at L3 4 IA 5 and Dr patient Logan reasonably medically ballpark as those of the January suggest that in light of the condition related May 2007 MRI study the reasonable to arthritic aggravation of the result of the December 29 2004 accident had when Dr reasonable factual basis exists pain s back in the reasonably Moreover he testified that it resolved itself low back s him to Logan admitted But Dr findings and McIntyre MRI express that related history the arthropathy van Deventer s notes do not indicate any of upon his examinations support OWC 2005 by May McIntyre for low back pain in May 2007 was conclusion that the s and that Dr Thus McIntyre Logan complaints s a of treatment of not related to the December 29 2004 accident See Edwards 99 2676 at p 9 765 So 2d at 332 McIntyre maintains that OWC erred in finding that Rouse effort to return her to work sedentary employment actually was stated uncontroverted she testimony a job perform sedentary job was was continuously paid Deventer released her to had while the employer a bona tide claimed that offered to her the evidence establishes that management could home she indicated that s that made sent her home when she tried to return to work the first time Deventer Rouse suggesting s that she in 2005 appeared for work on and indemnity duties in April for her within those medical restrictions McIntyre crutches and was 4 benefits during s s sent this time After Dr 2006 and Rouse McIntyre van While The record establishes that her medical sedentary job duties Dr van indicated it admitted that she never contacted Rouse Accordingly discontinued s to there inquire about was manifest no payment of bene tits Rouse to work within her restrictions For these reasons we claims in this memorandum 16 1 B when she should Appeal costs are error s OWC in by made report a to the store to work finding bona tide offer that to return before it Mcintyre and she refused it atlirm the OWC opinion assessed issued in judgment dismissing Mcintyre compliance with La URCA Rule 2 against claimant appellant Cynthia Mcintyre AFFIRMED 5 s
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.
