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
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

February 12, 2016 by admin

Workers’ compensation — Medical benefits — Judge of compensation claims utilized incorrect legal standard in determining that claimant was entitled to diagnostic evaluation of cervical spine four years after accident in which claimant sustained compensable shoulder injury

41 Fla. L. Weekly D358aTop of Form

Workers’
compensation — Medical benefits — Judge of compensation claims utilized
incorrect legal standard in determining that claimant was entitled to
diagnostic evaluation of cervical spine four years after accident in which
claimant sustained compensable shoulder injury — JCC improperly conflated
claimant’s burden to prove entitlement to an investigation of the causal
connection between voiced complaints and a previously accepted compensable
condition with claimant’s burden to prove causal relationship between a
condition and the workplace accident in the first instance — Claimant’s
subjective complaints, standing alone, were insufficient to prove claimant’s
injury and its occupational cause within a reasonable degree of medical
certainty based on objective relevant medical findings

MBM CORPORATION/SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,
Appellants, v. ARCHER WILSON, Appellee. 1st District. Case No. 1D15-2398.
Opinion filed February 10, 2016. An appeal from an order of the Judge of
Compensation Claims. Neal P. Pitts, Judge. Date of Accident: October 16, 2010.
Counsel: Lamar D. Oxford and Michael A. Lowe of Dean, Ringers, Morgan &
Lawton, P.A., Orlando, for Appellants. Bill McCabe, Longwood, and Thomas A.
Vaughan, Orlando, for Appellee.

(PER CURIAM.) In this workers’ compensation appeal, the
Employer/Carrier (E/C) argues that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) erred
in finding Claimant entitled to authorization for an evaluation of his cervical
spine in order to obtain a diagnosis. We agree the JCC utilized an incorrect
legal standard in determining that Claimant was entitled to the requested
diagnostic evaluation. Accordingly, we reverse the appealed order.

I.

Claimant was injured on October 16, 2010, when he fell
backwards out of the truck he was unloading, landing on asphalt and striking
his head and right shoulder. Only a right shoulder injury was diagnosed, and
treatment was authorized by the E/C for that injury.

Four years later, Claimant filed a petition for benefits
requesting a referral to a physician for evaluation of his head and neck pain.
The E/C denied the request on grounds that any head or neck condition had not
been accepted as compensable and that the compensable accident was not the
major contributing cause of any head or neck condition.

In support of his claim, Claimant relied on the testimony of
Dr. Macksoud, the physician authorized to provide treatment for his compensable
shoulder condition. Dr. Macksoud testified it would be reasonable, assuming
that Claimant’s neck had been symptomatic since the date of the accident, for
Claimant to have an evaluation to obtain a diagnosis for his neck condition.
Dr. Macksoud was not questioned as to whether there was any possible causal
relationship between Claimant’s compensable shoulder injury and the cervical
spine complaints.

The JCC accepted Dr. Macksoud’s testimony, as well as that
of Claimant that he had experienced some cervical spine symptoms since the date
of the accident. The JCC concluded it was reasonable necessary, and
appropriate, to refer Claimant to a physician for an evaluation of his cervical
spine.

II.

A claimant bears the burden of proof to establish
entitlement to benefits. See Fitzgerald v. Osceola Cty. Sch. Bd.,
974 So. 2d 1161, 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Further, a claimant has the burden
to present expert medical evidence establishing a causal connection between the
requested benefits and the compensable accident. See Wausau Ins. Co.
v. Tillman
, 765 So. 2d 123, 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Subsection 440.09(1),
Florida Statutes (2010), provides:

The
employer must
pay compensation or furnish benefits required by this
chapter if the employee suffers an accidental compensable injury
or death
arising out of work performed in the course and scope of employment. The
injury, its occupational cause
, and any resulting manifestations or
disability must be established to a reasonable degree of medical certainty,
based on objective relevant medical findings
, and the accidental
compensable injury must be the major contributing cause of any resulting
injuries. For purposes of this section, “major contributing cause” means the
cause which is more than 50 percent responsible for the injury as compared to
all other causes combined for which treatment or benefits are sought. . . . Pain
or other subjective complaints alone, in the absence of objective relevant
medical findings, are not compensable.
For purposes of this section,
“objective relevant medical findings” are those objective findings that
correlate to the subjective complaints of the injured employee and are
confirmed by physical examination findings or diagnostic testing.
Establishment
of the causal relationship between a compensable accident and injuries for
conditions that are not readily observable must be by medical evidence only, as
demonstrated by physical examination findings or diagnostic testing.
[MCC]
must be demonstrated by medical evidence only. (emphasis added).

To the extent resolution of this appeal requires statutory
interpretation, it is subject to de novo review. See Lombardi
v. S. Wine & Spirits
, 890 So. 2d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).
Whether the JCC utilized the correct legal standard is also reviewed de novo.
See Banks v. Allegiant Sec., 122 So. 3d 983, 985 (Fla. 1st DCA
2013) (“Our review of an erroneous application of the law is de novo.”).

III.

Claimant failed to meet his burden of proof. In awarding
benefits, the JCC erred by conflating Claimant’s burden to prove entitlement to
an investigation of the causal connection between voiced complaints and a
previously accepted compensable condition, with Claimant’s burden to prove the
causal relationship between a condition and the workplace accident in the first
instance.

There was no allegation or argument that the compensable
shoulder injury may be the cause of the head and neck complaints. Rather,
Claimant sought a diagnostic evaluation to determine whether a potential neck
or head condition was related to the compensable workplace accident. The JCC’s
finding that Claimant had voiced complaints since the date of the accident
could be relevant to support a medical expert’s opinion that the head or neck
condition is causally related to the accident, but there was no such opinion
here — Dr. Macksoud testified only that it would be reasonable to have an
evaluation to diagnose a neck condition.* Claimant’s subjective complaints,
standing alone, however, will not meet the requirements of subsection 440.09(1)
that he prove his injury and its occupational cause within a reasonable degree
of medical certainty based on objective relevant medical findings.

IV.

Based on the foregoing, we REVERSE the order on appeal and
REMAND for entry of an order denying the claimed evaluation. (ROWE, RAY, and
SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.)

__________________

*We note that Claimant did not, in the petition filed
herein, request the JCC ascertain the compensability of any cervical or head
condition, thus, this is a claim that is open for future litigation should
Claimant secure an expert medical opinion relating a neck or head injury to the
compensable accident.

* *
*

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business losses — Business interruption — All-risk commercial policy providing coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to” property or “direct physical loss or damage to” property does not insure against losses and expenses incurred by business as result of COVID-19 — Under Florida law there is no coverage because COVID-19 did not cause tangible alteration of the insured properties
  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business income losses — Trial court’s finding that policy covering loss of business income due to the suspension of operations caused by “direct physical loss or damage to property” required some tangible alteration to insured property comported with common meaning of its terms and context of policy as a whole — Policy did not cover economic losses insured suffered when it suspended its operations due to COVID-19 pandemic — No error in dismissing with prejudice insured’s petition for declaratory relief and damages
  • Torts — Negligent security — Sovereign immunity — Agency — Limited immunity — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Action brought against company which contracted with county to provide security services and its employee — Defendant company was entitled to limited sovereign immunity under 768.28(5) where county asserted a degree of control over defendant’s employees — Fact that defendant’s employee was working alone rather than side-by-side with county employees did not change level of control county had over defendant employee as evidenced by contract between county and defendant — Absolute immunity under section 768.28(9) applied to defendant employee, but did not apply to defendant company because it is a corporation — No abuse of discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint to add count for punitive damages where record is devoid of evidence that defendant employee engaged in intentional misconduct or gross negligence
  • Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Assignee’s action against insurer to recover payment for construction work performed on insured property following hurricane damage — Court adopts magistrate’s report and recommendation concluding that Section 627.7152(10), Florida Statutes, which repeals assignee’s standing to recover attorney’s fees under section 627.428, does not apply in instant case where both issuance of policy and assignment agreement predated effective date of statute — Whether relevant date for purposes of applying statute is date policy was issued or date assignment agreement was entered into need not be resolved under circumstances — Motion to strike plaintiff’s claims for attorney’s fees is denied
  • Torts — Dog bite — Negligence — Sheriffs — Sovereign immunity — Action alleging deputy sheriff was negligent in handling K-9 that bit plaintiff while attending a public event — Trial court erred in dismissing complaint against sheriff on ground that action was barred by sovereign immunity — Although a plaintiff may not rely on section 767.04 when suing a state agency for a dog bite because it is a strict liability statute, a plaintiff may bring such a suit in common-law negligence — Complaint adequately stated a cause of action for negligence under common law principles — Court rejects argument that plaintiff placed himself in zone of risk by approaching area occupied by deputy and police dog, and that because deputy did not move in proximity to plaintiff there was no zone of risk created by conduct of deputy — Deputy created the zone of risk by patrolling the venue with his K-9 — Whether the deputy was walking around or standing still was irrelevant — Because plaintiff was in a public location he had the right to walk where he wanted, including right up to the deputy, and, unless warned by the deputy to move away, plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that the dog would not bite him — Lawsuit was not barred by sovereign immunity where, although the decision to patrol the public venue with K-9s may have been a discretionary function, the act of patrolling the venue with K-9s was operational

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 © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982