GLADYS SUAREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICAN BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
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.
This worker's compensation appeal reverses the deputy commissioner's denial of the claimant's petition for modification due to multiple material errors in findings of fact. The court identified factual errors concerning the causation of the claimant's surgical conditions and the documentation of her lower extremity weakness, and remanded for reconsideration rather than making its own factual determinations.
The court found multiple material errors in the deputy commissioner's findings of fact: the doctor's testimony regarding aspirin did not eliminate other medications as causes of ulcers; the claimant did advise a physician of falls from leg weakness; hospital records did show the leg condition; the evidence supported ongoing post-phlebitic syndrome rather than resolution of phlebitis; and the claimant's neck and shoulder complaints predated the resuscitation incident.
[1] A deputy commissioner's finding of fact in a worker's compensation case may be erroneous if it mischaracterizes or omits relevant testimony or medical records.
[2] A deputy commissioner's finding that a claimant's surgery was not causally related to an industrial accident is erroneous if the medical testimony cited only addresses on…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“We do not expect or demand perfection in the factual recitals in worker's compensation orders. See Indian River County Road & Bridge v. Stalling, IRC Order 2-2897 (1975).”
Establishes the applicable standard of review for factual findings in worker's compensation cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGladys Suarez suffered an industrial accident resulting in a compensable phlebitic condition of her left leg. She subsequently underwent surgery for d…
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 Medical Records cases and more on FLexlaw
LARRY G. SMITH, Judge.
This worker’s compensation appeal is concerned primarily with alleged material errors in the deputy commissioner’s findings of fact upon which he denied the appellant-claimant’s petition for modification. We reverse.
In paragraph five of the order the deputy commissioner found, based upon the testimony of Dr. Eugene Komrad, that the claimant’s surgery for duodenal ulcers was not causally related to her industrial accident. The error is that Dr. Komrad’s testimony related only to the medication, aspirin, as a cause of ulcers, and his testimony did not eliminate ingestion of the medication, Butazolidin, as a possible cause of duodenal ulcers.
Paragraph six contains a finding that “claimant never advised any of her numerous attending and treating physicians that she has fallen and injured herself as a result of her left leg giving way due to pain and weakness of her left lower extremity caused by her compensable phlebitic condition.” The error is that the record shows that claimant did advise Dr. Engelmann, a chiropractor, of these falls. In the same paragraph the deputy commissioner found that the records of American Hospital contained no record or history of the claimant’s alleged weakness of the left lower extremity. The error is that American Hospital’s records do show that claimant was admitted to that hospital on October 8, 1974 for thrombophlebitis of her left leg.
Paragraph six also contains the finding that “based upon the testimony of Dr. Eugene Komrad and Dr. Pedro Ramos, that since August, 1974, the claimant has had no further evidence of active phlebitis.” The error is that Dr. Komrad did not see the claimant after December, 1973; and, although Dr. Ramos did testify that claimant did not suffer active phlebitis after August, 1974, he did point out that the claimant was suffering from post-phlebitic syndrome, and he made the diagnosis that the falls the claimant related to him were the results of the symptoms from the post-phlebitic syndrome.
Finally, in paragraph seven the deputy commissioner’s order contains the finding that the claimant’s present complaints of neck, low back and right shoulder pain, as well as the necessity for neck and right shoulder surgery, were not precipitated or caused by the claimant’s falling as a result of her leg giving way, “but are in fact attributable to emergency efforts to resuscitate the claimant when she fainted while undergoing diagnostic tests ... in October 1975 .... ” The error is that the claimant obviously had these complaints of neck, low back and right shoulder pain before the incident involving emergency resuscitation efforts in October, 1975.
We do not expect or demand perfection in the factual recitals in worker’s compensation orders. See Indian River County Road & Bridge v. Stalling, IRC Order 2-2897 (1975). We are not unmindful of the arguments and references to the record contained in the brief of the appellees, from which it appears that each of the ultimate findings of fact made by the deputy commissioner can be supported by record evidence. We also acknowledge and appreciate the forthright manner in which appel-lees have addressed the problems presented here, by clearly admitting those errors of fact where they appear in the order.1 Nonetheless, we think the ends of justice would be better served in this case by remanding this cause to the deputy commissioner for further consideration, and correc tion of the alleged errors, rather than for this court to undertake its own determination of the facts from the record. Even though we might, in good conscience, be capable of objectively determining whether the record supports the order’s ultimate findings, we will decline to do so because of the substantial risk that we will give the appearance of weighing the evidence. This court does not act as the trier of fact.
Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded.
MILLS and SHAW, JJ., concur. . We must point out again, however, that the failure of counsel to give proper attention to the contents of the deputy commissioner’s order has resulted in a needless waste of time, money, and the judicial resources of this state. Genuine Parts Co. v. Morris, 409 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), Case No. AB-479, opinion filed January 28, 1982, 7 FLW 309; Acosta Roofíng Co. v. Gillyard, 402 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec. v. Am. Bldg. Maint. & Allstate Ins. Co., 449 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…ment, pursuant to Rule 9.400(c), Fla.R.App.P., for review of the deputy commissioner’s order denying the Department's motion to tax costs. We reverse, and order costs of the appeal incurred by the claimant in Suarez v. American Building Maintenance, 412 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), to be paid by the employer/carrier. Gladys Suarez, a claimant in a workers’ compensation proceeding, appealed an adverse order. Pursuant to Florida Workers’ [*933] Compensation Rules of Procedure, claimant filed a verified peti…
-
Edgewood Boys' Ranch Found. & N.H. Ins. Co. v. Robinson, 451 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…s v. Patterson, 433 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Sunland Hospital/State of Florida v. Garrett, 415 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Acosta Roofing Co. v. Gillyard, 402 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); cf., Suarez v. American Building Maintenance, 412 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Reversal of the award for any of the reasons advanced by the E/C at this late date would only tend to further delay the expenditure of the funds necessary to comply with the order, thus having the effect of rewarding the E/C for…
-
Duval Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Rupp, 414 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…parties, within the 30-day period before a compensation order becomes final, to correct remediable errors that might otherwise inspire needless appeals. Section 440.25(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1981); Suarez v. American Building Maintenance, et al., 412 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Genuine Parts Co. v. Morris, 409 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Acosta Roofing Co. v. Giliyard, 402 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The amendment to the compensation order adding a paragraph finding bad faith as a predicate…
Authorities Cited
- Acosta Roofing Co. & Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Gussie Gillyard, 402 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Genuine Parts Co. & Sentry Indem. Co. v. Morris, 409 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)