Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

January 9, 2014 by admin

Workers’ Comp — Rejection of uncontroverted medical opinion

39 Fla. L. Weekly D51b


Workers’ compensation — Permanent total disability —
Evidence — Error to reject uncontroverted opinions of claimant’s medical
witness without providing valid reason for rejection

ROBERT YOUNG, Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES and SEDGWICK, Appellees. 1st
District. Case No. 1D13-1273. Opinion filed December 31, 2013. An appeal from an
order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Stephen L. Rosen, Judge. Date of
Accident: November 29, 2003. Counsel: Toni L. Villaverde of Toni L. Villaverde,
PLLC, Coral Gables, for Appellant. Marjorie Gadarian Graham of Marjorie Gadarian
Graham, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, and Ara R. Gechijian of Pallo, Marks,
Hernandez, Gechijian & DeMay, Palm Beach Gardens, for Appellees.
(PER CURIAM.) This is the second time this workers’ compensation case has
come before this court. In Young v. American Airlines & Sedgwick, 100
So. 3d 1168, 1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), we reversed an order of the Judge of
Compensation Claims (JCC), which denied Claimant’s petition for permanent total
disability (PTD) benefits, based on our conclusion that the JCC erred in
admitting and relying upon an unauthenticated report from the Employer/Carrier’s
independent medical examiner. Id. at 1169. We then remanded with
instructions to the JCC to enter a final order awarding PTD benefits based on
the uncontroverted opinions of Dr. Kleinhaus unless the JCC found the opinions
unpersuasive. On remand, the JCC rejected Dr. Kleinhaus’s opinions because he
“was not persuaded” by same. In doing so, however, the JCC provided no
additional factual or legal reasons for the rejection of Dr. Kleinhaus’s
uncontested expert opinions regarding Claimant’s status as having reached
maximum medical improvement and his permanent work restrictions.
In this appeal, Claimant argues the JCC erred by rejecting Dr. Kleinhaus’s
uncontroverted medical opinions because no legally valid basis for such
rejection was provided by the JCC; we agree. We conclude that the JCC erred by
failing to provide a valid reason for rejecting the unrefuted medical opinions
based on findings such as flawed medical history, inherent illogic or
incredibility, or any other reasonable basis for finding Dr. Kleinhaus’s
opinions unreliable or unworthy of belief. Wald v. Grainger, 64 So. 3d
1201 (Fla. 2011); see also Feacher v. Total Emp. Leasing/Guarantee
Ins. Co.
, 61 So. 3d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) citing Vadala
v. Polk Cnty. Sch. Bd.
, 822 So. 2d 582, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (holding
that JCC may reject unrefuted medical testimony but must give legally valid
reason). Accordingly, we reverse the order below in its entirety and remand with
instructions for entry of a final order awarding PTD benefits along with the
applicable penalties, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. (WOLF, VAN NORTWICK,
and CLARK, JJ., CONCUR.)

* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982