Jason A. Jessie Versus The Wendy's Company Wendy's International, Inc. & Haza Foods of Louisiana, L.L.C.

JASON A. JESSIE NO. 22-CA-156

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

THE WENDY'S COMPANY WENDY'S COURT OF APPEAL
INTERNATIONAL, INC. & HAZA FOODS OF
LOUISIANA, L.L.C. STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 804-994, DIVISION "C"
HONORABLE JUNE B. DARENSBURG, JUDGE PRESIDING

December 07, 2022

STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Stephen J. Windhorst, and Hans J. Liljeberg

AFFIRMED
SJW
SMC
HJL

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,
JASON A. JESSIE
David C. Pellegrin, Jr.

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE,
HAZA FOODS OF LOUISIANA, L.L.C.
Dean M. Arruebarrena
Megan A. Haynes

WINDHORST, J.

Appellant/plaintiff, Jason Jessie, seeks review of the trial court’s October 27,

2021 judgment granting summary judgment in favor of appellee/defendant, HAZA

Foods of Louisiana, L.L.C., dismissing plaintiff’s claims against defendant with

prejudice. For the following reasons, we affirm.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY and FACTS

Plaintiff filed a petition for damages against defendant, alleging he suffered

food poisoning after eating a Caesar side salad containing romaine lettuce from a

Wendy’s restaurant, operated by defendant. He alleged that he purchased the salad

from Wendy’s on November 21, 2019 and stored it in his refrigerator overnight to

eat for lunch at work the next day. The following day, after eating one bite of the

salad, he contended that the salad tasted “gritty.” He took a second bite which was

also gritty and he spit it out. Upon moving the lettuce around, he noticed “dirt” and

saw “a bug or two” in the salad. Plaintiff asserted that he became ill the next day as

a result of eating the Wendy’s side salad.

After filing an answer and sufficient discovery, defendant filed a motion for

summary judgment. Defendant contended that plaintiff lacked any medical evidence

to prove that his alleged symptoms were caused by consumption of the single bite

of the Wendy’s side salad. In support of its motion, defendant attached plaintiff’s

deposition and the deposition of Dr. John Langley.

Plaintiff testified in his deposition that he did not immediately seek medical

treatment. His first and only medical treatment occurred six days after consuming

the salad when he went to the Ochsner emergency room on November 28, 2019.

Jessica Cedotal, a physician’s assistant, evaluated him and diagnosed him with

gastroenteritis. Plaintiff acknowledged that he does not have any evidence, except

his own testimony, to show that his symptoms were caused by consumption of the

salad.

22-CA-156 1

Dr. Langley, the supervising physician for Ms. Cedotal on November 28,

2019, testified in his deposition that he agreed with Ms. Cedotal’s diagnosis of

gastroenteritis. However, he could not associate a “gritty” taste or seeing a bug in

the salad with food poisoning. He testified that it was his opinion that plaintiff’s

treatment and symptoms were not related to his consumption of the salad.

In opposition, plaintiff contended that there is ample evidence for a trier of

fact to infer that the Wendy’s salad caused his food poisoning. Relying on his

deposition testimony that the salad was gritty, dirty, and contained a bug, plaintiff

argued that the condition of the salad suggested that it was not sufficiently washed

and that negligence of defendant may have played a role in the presence of E. coli

in the salad. Plaintiff contended that his assertion that food poisoning is the most

likely explanation for his symptoms is supported by the affidavit of his expert, Dr.

Matthew Lee. Specifically, Dr. Lee stated that the country was in the middle of an

E. coli outbreak connected to romaine lettuce when plaintiff became ill and that

plaintiff’s symptoms were consistent with E. coli poisoning.

In his opposition, plaintiff objected to the affidavit of defendant’s expert, Dr.

Langley, arguing that the affidavit was not based on personal knowledge. Plaintiff

argued that Dr. Langley was only the supervising physician when he was evaluated

and diagnosed with gastroenteritis and he “seemed to have no knowledge of food

poisoning.” Plaintiff further questioned whether Dr. Langley’s testimony was

relevant because he did not exam plaintiff and only looked at this case because he

was deposed. Plaintiff submitted his deposition and affidavit, the affidavit of his

expert, Dr. Lee, defendant’s answers to interrogatories, and Dr. Langley’s deposition

in support of his opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

In reply, defendant emphasized that plaintiff failed to present any medical

evidence linking E. coli to his consumption of the salad. Specifically, defendant

asserted that plaintiff did not have any medical evidence or a medical

22-CA-156 2

expert/healthcare provider to support his assertion that his consumption of one bite

of the Wendy’s side salad caused his alleged food poisoning. Additionally,

defendant pointed out that plaintiff did not show that the salad was the only food

item he ate on the date of the alleged incident. In his deposition, plaintiff admitted

that he consumed other food within the 24 hour period of eating the salad: a coffee

and an orange for breakfast, and soup and crackers for dinner on the day of the

incident.

Further, in response to plaintiff’s assertion that Dr. Langley is defendant’s

expert, defendant responded that Dr. Langley was the supervising physician for Ms.

Cedotal, who evaluated and diagnosed plaintiff with gastroenteritis. Dr. Langley

reviewed Ms. Cedotal’s specific medical diagnostic findings of plaintiff, which was

the only medical treatment plaintiff received after his consumption of the salad.

After reviewing plaintiff’s medical records and symptoms, Dr. Langley did not

diagnose plaintiff with E. coli or relate any of his symptoms to consumption of the

salad.

Defendant objected to the exhibits attached to plaintiff’s affidavit, asserting that

they were not proper summary judgment evidence pursuant La. C.C.P. art. 966 A(4).

Accordingly, defendant asserted that the exhibits should not be considered by the

trial court and that they should be stricken from the record.

After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted defendant’s objection and

ordered that the exhibits attached to plaintiff’s affidavit to be stricken from the

record.1 The trial court also granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment,

dismissing plaintiff’s claims against defendant with prejudice. This appeal followed.

1 Plaintiff did not appeal the trial court’s ruling that the exhibits were stricken from the record and thus, this
issue is not properly before this court. Nevertheless, upon de novo review, we find the trial court did not
err in granting defendant’s objection and striking from the record the Centers for Disease Control articles
(“CDC articles”) attached to plaintiff’s affidavit. La. C.C.P. arts. 966 and 967 do not permit a party to utilize
unsworn and unverified documents as summary judgment evidence. Reed v. Landry, 21-589 (La. App. 5
Cir. 06/03/22), 343 So.3d 874, 881, citing Dye v. LLOG Exploration Company, LLC, 20-441 (La. App. 5 Cir.
11/03/21), 330 So.3d 1222, 1224. In the instant case, although the CDC articles were attached to plaintiff’s
affidavit, they were not certified or authenticated. Thus, the CDC articles cannot be considered by this court
or the trial court because they are not proper summary judgment evidence.

22-CA-156 3

DISCUSSION

On appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred (1) in granting summary

judgment in favor of defendant because genuine issues of material fact exist; (2) by

applying the wrong standard of proof for food poisoning cases; and (3) in granting

summary judgment because the evidence provided by defendant in support of its

motion was not admissible or relevant.

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the motion, memorandum,

and supporting documents show there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and

that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966 A(3).

The burden of proof rests with the mover. La. C.C.P. art. 966 D(1). However, if the

mover will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the issue before the trial court on

the motion for summary judgment, the mover is not required to negate all essential

elements of the plaintiff's claim, but is only required to point out the absence of

factual support for one or more elements essential to the plaintiff's claim. Id. The

burden then shifts to the plaintiff to produce factual support sufficient to show the

existence of a genuine issue of material fact or that the mover is not entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. Id.

Appellate courts review the granting of summary judgment de novo under the

same criteria governing the trial court’s consideration of whether summary judgment

is appropriate. Crosby v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 10-1015 (La. App. 5 Cir. 06/14/11),

67 So.3d 695, 696, citing Landreneau v. Copeland’s Cheese Cake Bistro, L.L.C., 08-

647 (La. App. 5 Cir. 01/13/09), 7 So.3d 703. A de novo review “involves examining

the facts and evidence in the record, without regard or deference to the judgment of

the trial court or its reasons for judgment.” Allday v. Newpark Square I Office

Condominium Association, Inc., 20-358 (La. App. 5 Cir. 08/18/21), 327 So.3d 566,

573, citing Hooper v. Hero Lands Co., 15-929 (La. App. 4 Cir. 03/30/16), 216 So.3d

965, 973-974, writ denied, 16-971 (La. 09/16/16), 206 So.3d 205. While reasons for

22-CA-156 4

judgment may be informative, they are not determinative of the legal issues to be

resolved on appeal. Id. Appellate courts review judgments, not reasons for

judgment, and judgments are often upheld on appeal for reasons different than those

assigned by the trial court. See Wooley v. Lucksinger, 09-571, 09-584, 09-585, 09-

586 (La. 04/01/11), 61 So.3d 507, 572.

In a food poisoning case, the plaintiff must prove that the deleterious condition

existed in the product when it was purchased. Crosby, 67 So.3d at 697; Landreneau,

7 So.3d at 706. The plaintiff must further prove the existence of a causal relationship

between the illness or injury and the consumption of the food. Landreneau, 7 So.3d

at 706. In fulfilling this burden of proof, “it is not necessary for the consumer to

negate every conceivable cause but he must show that it is more likely than not that

the food's condition caused the injury of which he complains.” Id., citing Griffin v.

Schwegmann Bros. Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 542 So.2d 710, 712 (La. App. 4 Cir.

1989). See also, Landry v. Joey’s, Inc., 18-441 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/12/18), 261 So.3d

112, 115-116, writ denied, 19-72 (La. 03/06/19), 266 So.3d 903.

“The courts have never compelled a plaintiff to produce an actual analysis
of the food consumed in order to establish its unwholesome condition.
Rather, the courts have been willing to infer the deleterious nature of the
food consumed from the circumstances surrounding the illness. In all of
the cases in which there has been successful recovery, the plaintiff has
shown that the food was consumed by him, and that no other food which
might reasonably be assumed to have caused the illness had been
consumed within a number of hours before or after the consumption of the
suspect product. The plaintiff has also had medical opinion to the effect
that it was probable that his illness was caused by the consumption of the
particular product involved. In addition, the successful plaintiffs in the
above cases have been able to show some other independent circumstance,
which tends to prove his case….”

Landreneau, 7 So.3d at 706, citing Foster v. AFC Enter., Inc., 04-1014 (La. App. 3

Cir. 03/02/05), 896 So.2d 293, 296, writ denied, 05-839 (La. 05/13/05), 902 So.2d

1027 (Citations omitted). See also, Turner v. Cajun Operating Company (of

Delaware), 54,471 (La. App. 2 Cir. 05/25/22), 338 So.3d 1268, 1273, writ denied,

22-1121 (La. 11/01/22), 2022 WL 16570574. Therefore, a plaintiff cannot establish

22-CA-156 5

that a food product caused an illness simply by presenting circumstantial evidence.

Turner, 338 So.3d at 1273. A plaintiff must have medical evidence to prove that

they suffered food poisoning and medical evidence to prove that the food poisoning

was caused by the consumption or ingestion of the allegedly tainted food. Id. A

mere showing that a person became sick subsequent to consumption of food, alone,

is insufficient to establish a causal link for recovery. Id.

Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment

when the only evidence advanced by the defendant in support of its motion for

summary judgment was testimony provided by Dr. Langley. Plaintiff argues that

because Dr. Langley was a supervising physician who did not examine plaintiff, his

deposition testimony was not based on personal knowledge, citing McCoy v.

Physicians & Surgeons Hospital, Inc., 452 So.2d 308, 310 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1984).

A review of the record shows that defendant submitted Dr. Langley’s

deposition and plaintiff’s deposition in support of its motion for summary judgment.

Although plaintiff initially objected to Dr. Langley’s deposition testimony in his

opposition memorandum, plaintiff did not object to Dr. Langley’s deposition at the

evidentiary hearing on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. When defendant

offered all of its exhibits into evidence, counsel for plaintiff stated he did not object.

The trial court questioned plaintiff’s counsel about plaintiff’s objection to Dr.

Langley’s deposition testimony in his opposition. Plaintiff’s counsel stated he was

not objecting to the deposition’s admissibility, he was objecting to the “weight” the

testimony should be given. The trial court then inquired whether plaintiff was

withdrawing his objection to Dr. Langley’s deposition testimony, to which plaintiff’s

counsel replied, “That’s correct, Judge.”

Nevertheless, on de novo review, this court reviews whether evidence

submitted in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment is proper

22-CA-156 6

summary judgment evidence. La. C.C.P. art. 966 A(4) provides the exclusive list of

documents which may be considered by the trial or reviewing courts:

A. (4) The only documents that may be filed in support of or in opposition
to the motion are pleadings, memoranda, affidavits, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, certified medical records, written
stipulations, and admissions. [Emphasis added]

Thus, the introduction of documents which are not included in this exclusive list,

such as photographs, pictures, video images, or contracts, is not permitted unless

they are properly authenticated by an affidavit or the deposition to which they are

attached. Reed, 343 So.3d at 881; Dye, 330 So.3d at 1224.

In Independent Fire Ins. Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 99-2181 (La. 02/29/00), 755

So.2d 226, 235, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that expert opinion testimony in

the form of an affidavit or deposition can be considered on a motion for summary

judgment. An expert is allowed wide latitude to offer opinions, including those not

based on firsthand knowledge or observation. Id. at 234; La. C.E. arts. 702 and 703.

A trial court’s decision to admit or exclude expert opinion evidence at a motion for

summary judgment hearing is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.

MSOF Corp. v. Exxon Corp., 04-988 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/22/05), 934 So.2d 708,

717, writ denied, 06-1669 (La. 10/06/06), 938 So.2d 78; La. C.E. art. 702. Upon de

novo review, we find that the trial court did not err in admitting and considering Dr.

Langley’s expert deposition testimony and plaintiff’s deposition testimony in

support of defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

In this case, defendant satisfied its burden by pointing out an absence of any

proof of an essential element of plaintiff’s claim, i.e., a lack of expert medical

evidence to show that plaintiff’s alleged food poisoning was caused by his

consumption of the Wendy’s salad. In his deposition, plaintiff was asked if he was

informed by any doctor or expert that the lettuce or any part of the salad was

contaminated. Plaintiff replied, “Not a medical physician, no. It would only come

22-CA-156 7

from me.” He was further questioned as to whether any doctor or expert told him

that his symptoms were related to the consumption of the salad he purchased from

Wendy’s. Plaintiff responded, “I would have to say no.” In his deposition, Dr.

Langley testified that he could not associate a “gritty” taste or seeing a bug in the

salad with food poisoning. He further testified that it was his opinion that plaintiff’s

treatment and symptoms were not related to the consumption of the salad.

The burden then shifted to plaintiff to produce evidence sufficient to establish

that he would be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at trial. Plaintiff’s

exhibits in opposition, including his expert’s affidavit, are insufficient to defeat

defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff admitted in his deposition

testimony that he was not told by any medical physician that his symptoms were

related to his consumption of the salad. He also acknowledged that he did not have

any evidence, other than his own testimony, that the consumption of one bite of the

Wendy’s side salad caused his alleged food poisoning. Moreover, plaintiff’s expert,

Dr. Lee, stated only that plaintiff’s gastroenteritis was “more consistent” with

E. coli, not that plaintiff’s consumption of the salad caused his alleged food poisoning.

Absent testimony or evidence from a medical expert or healthcare provider

regarding the probability that the consumption of one bite of the Wendy’s Caesar

side salad caused plaintiff’s alleged food poisoning, plaintiff did not establish he

could satisfy his burden at trial. Therefore, upon de novo review of the record, we

find no genuine issues of material fact exist and defendant is entitled to judgment as

a matter of law. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting the motion for

summary judgment.

DECREE

For the reasons stated herein, the trial court’s October 27, 2021 judgment is

affirmed.

AFFIRMED

22-CA-156 8

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
INTERIM CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON LINDA M. WISEMAN
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
DECEMBER 7, 2022 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

22-CA-156
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE JUNE B. DARENSBURG (DISTRICT JUDGE)
DAVID C. PELLEGRIN, JR. (APPELLANT) DEAN M. ARRUEBARRENA (APPELLEE)

MAILED
LOUIS P. BONNAFFONS (APPELLEE)
MEGAN A. HAYNES (APPELLEE)
MISHA M. LOGAN (APPELLEE)
ROBERT L. BONNAFFONS (APPELLEE)
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1100 POYDRAS STREET
SUITE 1700
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70163