BEASLEY & SON, INC., AND CHUBB/PACIFIC INDEMNITY GROUP, APPELLANTS,
v.
PAUL NORRIS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An appellate court reviewed a workers' compensation judge's order regarding an injured employee's disability benefits. The court affirmed provisions for a transcutaneous nerve stimulator and payment of medical expenses, but reversed the order for narcoanalysis and the finding that the claimant had not reached maximum medical improvement.
The court affirmed the provision of the transcutaneous nerve stimulator and the payment of the disputed medical bill. The court reversed the order for narcoanalysis and the finding that the claimant had not reached maximum medical improvement, remanding for a determination of the degree of disability under established criteria.
[1] A judge of industrial claims errs in finding that a claimant has not reached maximum medical improvement when all doctors testify that maximum medical improvement has bee…
[2] A narcoanalysis is not required when a claimant is being treated for complaints and there is no indication that the procedure is necessary due to the nature of the injury…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The record does not support a need for the narcoanalysis. The claimant is being treated for his complaints, and there is no indication that narcoanalysis is here required by the nature of the injury or the process of recovery, § 440.13, Florida Statutes (1977).”
Establishes the standard for ordering narcoanalysis in workers' compensation cases and explains why such an order was not supported by the record.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant, Paul Norris, suffered a work-related injury and was receiving workers' compensation benefits. The judge of industrial claims reclassifie…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Anatomical Impairment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The employer/carrier seeks review of the judge of industrial claims’ order contending that the judge erred (1) in finding that claimant had not reached maximum medical improvement and in reclassifying his permanent partial disability benefits as temporary total disability benefits; (2) in ordering that claimant be narco-analyzed and furnished a transcutaneous nerve stimulator; and (3) in requiring the carrier to pay for medical tests which were done to rule out tuberculosis as an element in claimant’s disability.
We affirm the provision of the tran-scutaneous nerve stimulator and the payment of the disputed medical bill. We reverse the provision of the narcoanalysis and the finding that claimant has not reached maximum medical improvement.
The record does not support a need for the narcoanalysis. The claimant is being treated for his complaints, and there is no indication that narcoanalysis is here required by the nature of the injury or the process of recovery, § 440.13, Florida Statutes (1977).
Nor is there competent, substantial evidence to support the judge’s finding that maximum medical improvement had not been reached and that claimant continued to be temporarily and totally disabled. Neither the doctors nor the claimant testified that claimant was likely to improve, and all doctors testified he had reached maximum medical improvement.
There is competent, substantial evidence that claimant is permanently disabled in excess of his anatomical impairment. Therefore, we remand for a determination of his degree of disability under the criteria established in Walker v. Electronic Products and Engineering Co., 248 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1971).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
MILLS, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur. BOOTH, J., dissents with an opinion.
BOOTH, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent from this court’s retention of jurisdiction in this case, which arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court. See Crews v. Town of Bay Harbor, 378 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
On the merits, I would concur in the majority’s opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ardmore Farms, Inc. v. Squires, 395 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…nds and permanent disability begins. Ocala Jai-Ali, Inc. v. Johnson, IRC Order 2-3783 (April 24,1979); Sunland Training Center v. Hicks, IRC Order 2-3443 (May 25, 1978) cert. denied 368 So. 2d 1368 (Fla.1979); see also Beasley & Son, Inc. v. Norris, 379 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The question of when a claimant reaches MMI should not be confused with the question of a claimant’s ability to return to work in some capacity, which is a mixed question involving both medical evidence and claimant’s own testi…
-
Regal Marine Indus. & Emp'rs Self Insurers Fund v. Cappucci, 523 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…ds and permanent disability begins. Ocala Jai-Ali, Inc. v. Johnson, IRC Order 2-3783 (April 24, 1979); Sunland Training Center v. Hicks, IRC Order 2-3443 (May 25, 1978) cert. denied 368 So. 2d 1368 (Fla.1979); see also Beasley & Son, Inc. v. Norris, 379 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The question of when a claimant reaches MMI should not be confused with the question of a claimant’s ability to return to work in some capacity, which is a mixed question involving both medical evidence and claimant’s own testim…
Authorities Cited
- Emerson Crews v. Town OF BAY Harbor Islands & Metro. Dade Cnty. Self Ins. Fund, 378 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- THE Florida BAR v. Lemlich, 248 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1971)