Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, 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 Are Available to Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Blog
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Elisabeth K. Eubanks
  • Links
  • Contact Us

January 9, 2014 by Tom

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

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Automobile — Insurer who filed a claim under her automobile insurance policy after her vehicle was damaged in an accident sued insurer claiming breach of policy after insured declared the vehicle a total loss and paid her what it deemed the actual cash value of vehicle — Breach of contract — Insurer was entitled to summary judgment on claim that insurer breached the policy by using an illegal methodology to calculate actual cash value — District court did not err in ruling insurer’s methodology for calculating actual cash value complied with Florida law — As matter of first impression, Section 626.9743(5), Florida Statutes, which provides that, in calculating “actual cash value” of insured’s vehicle based on actual cost to purchase comparable motor vehicle “derived from … two or more comparable motor vehicles available [in local market area] within the preceding 90 days,” did not require that “actual cash value” equal actual cost to purchase comparable vehicle — Insurer’s use of the Uniform Condition Adjustment, advertised prices of comparable motor vehicles, and the Certified Collateral Corporation ONE Market Valuation system to calculate the actual cash value of insured’s vehicle complied with Florida statute — Statute did not require that insurer use “retail cost as determined from generally recognized motor vehicle industry source” if it utilized one of other two statutory alternative methods for determining cost to purchase comparable motor vehicle — Insurer was entitled to summary judgment on claim that it breached the policy by failing to pay, as part of vehicle’s actual cash value, dealer fees incurred in purchasing replacement vehicle — Insurer was not required to pay insured’s out-of-pocket dealer fees — Under Florida and Eleventh Circuit law, “actual cash value” in an insurance policy means replacement cost less depreciation, and replacement cost includes dealer fees if the policyholder is reasonably likely to need to incur dealer fees — Insured failed to satisfy the standard for inclusion of dealer fees in replacement cost where insured showed a reasonable likelihood that she would incur dealer fees if she chose to purchase her replacement vehicle from a dealer and that a policyholder is reasonably likely to purchase a replacement vehicle from a dealer, but failed to show that a policyholder is reasonably likely to need to purchase a replacement vehicle from a dealer
  • Torts — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Action alleging that vibration from defendant’s installation of sheet piles during construction on its parcel caused damage to plaintiff’s building — Trial court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion to amend its complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages based on allegation of gross negligence where plaintiff did not make required evidentiary showing to support such a claim — Report produced by third-party contractor warning defendant against the use of large vibratory compaction equipment in construction project, when read together with contractor’s deposition testimony, offered no evidentiary support for plaintiff’s claim that contractor warned defendant against using vibratory equipment in installation of sheet piles — Plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit, which drew illogical conclusions from contractor’s report, offered no support for gross negligence claim
  • Torts — Premises liability — Malls — Dangerous condition — Landscaping features — Vicarious liability — Action against operator of mall arising from injuries plaintiff suffered after stepping into a hole or depression in a raised landscape area which separated mall’s parking lot from the sidewalk that led to mall’s entrance — No error in entering summary judgment in favor of defendant because, as a matter of law, the landscaped area was not a dangerous condition — Evidence that a few people had walked across the landscaped area to get to the sidewalk was not sufficient to create a duty where there was no evidence that the grass bed had become a well-trampled footpath or that the grass bed has been in continuous and obvious use as a pedestrian shortcut such that defendant was put on constructive notice of the condition — Defendant cannot be held vicariously liable for condition created by landscapers where landscapers were not found liable
  • Torts — Automobile accident — Permanent injury — Causation — Trial court improperly directed verdict on causation given conflicting evidence which would have permitted reasonable jury to conclude that plaintiff had a pre-existing back injury caused by weight training or prior participation in competitive crew rowing
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Vandalism — Trial court erred by denying insurer’s motion for directed verdict where policy limited coverage to insured’s “residence premises,” and insured did not “reside” at the property at the time of loss — Fact that insured was no longer leasing the property and was intending to move back when property was vandalized does not alter analysis

Blog Archives

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 © 2023 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982