LANG POOLS AND CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
SHEILA MCINTOSH, 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 employer and insurance carrier appeal a workers' compensation order finding that a workplace trauma caused aseptic necrosis of the claimant's hip. The court remands to the deputy commissioner for clarification of the factual findings underlying the causation determination.
The court reversed the causation finding because Dr. Dave's opinion, which was the only direct evidence of causal relationship, lacked adequate factual foundation—it was premised on a history of a fall that contradicted the claimant's account and was inconsistent with Dr. Dave's own prior letter. The court remanded for the deputy commissioner to clarify findings of fact and resolve discrepancies.
[1] A medical expert's opinion requires a factual foundation and cannot stand alone without proof of essential supporting facts.
[2] A workers' compensation award cannot be based on an expert opinion that is premised on a history inconsistent with the claimant's own account of the accident.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A medical expert's opinion does not eliminate the necessity of proving the essential foundation facts in support thereof.”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle that expert opinions require adequate factual foundation to be probative.
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 injured her hip while picking up jugs of chlorine at work. Dr. Kriz testified that such a simple, even repeated act would not cause vascu…
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 Causation In Workers' Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The employer/carrier appeals a workers’ compensation order finding that the trauma suffered by claimant was a causative contributing factor to an aseptic necrosis of her hip. We remand for clarification.
The claimant testified by deposition that she injured her hip while picking up jugs of chlorine. The accident was similarly described by Dr. Kriz, who deposed that such a simple act, even if performed on a repeated basis, would not set the stage for a vascular necrosis of the femoral head. According to Dr. Kriz, the cause of claimant’s condition is related to her use of birth control pills and cigarettes.
The only direct evidence of causal relationship between the accident and claim ant’s condition is found in Dr. Dave’s deposition. Although it is questionable whether that deposition and the attached letters were of record, we assume they were because the deputy referred to the deposition in his order and because the parties have so stipulated on appeal.
Dr. Dave testified by deposition that claimant suffered a fall while carrying jugs of chlorine and that the injury which resulted from said trauma produced a possible synovitis which gradually developed a problem of circulatory changes in claimant’s hip joint, thus causing an aseptic necrosis of the head of the femur. However, attached to Dr. Dave’s deposition was a letter written by him prior to the date of deposition in which he noted that claimant receded from any history of a fall. The doctor did not state whether claimant’s condition could be caused by the mere act of carrying jugs.
A medical expert’s opinion does not eliminate the necessity of proving the essential foundation facts in support thereof. Gold Coast Paving Company, Inc. v. Fonseca, 411 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). On the record before us, there is no competent substantial evidence upon which to find that claimant suffered a fall. Since Dr. Dave’s opinion is premised upon the history of a fall, which is at variance with the accident as described by claimant, that doctor’s opinion lacks factual foundation and does not support a finding of causation.
However, the brevity of the deputy commissioner’s conclusory order has impeded our review. Accordingly, we decline to reverse at this time and, instead, remand the cause to the deputy commissioner with directions to clarify his order by setting forth his findings of fact and resolving any discrepancies therein.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and McCORD and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fuchs Baking Co. & Emp'r's Serv. Corp. v. Est. of Francis Szlosek, 466 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…in the record, Geiger Distributors, Inc. v. Snow, 186 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1966), not upon facts or inferences not supported by evidence, Victoria Hospital v. Perez, 395 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) or not independently proved. Lang Pools v. McIntosh, 415 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Gold Coast Paving Co., Inc. v. Fonseca, 411 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). See also Arkin Construction Co. v. Simpkins, 99 So. 2d 557 (Fla.1957). Appellant contends that, as the claimant did not begin treatment with Dr. Stillma…
-
State of Fla. Dep't OF Corr. v. Junod, 217 So. 3d 200 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…of Claimant, and required judgment for the E/C. Punsky, 18 So. 3d at 584. (1) Inaccurate Factual Foundation. We have held that an expert must establish accurate essential foundation facts in support of the expert’s opinion. Lang Pools v. McIntosh, 415 So. 2d 842, 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (rejecting expert’s opinion based on premise that claimant suffered a fall, when claimant’s own testimony was to the contrary, rendering the expert’s factual foundation erroneous); see also Arkin Constr. Co. v. Simpkins, 99…
-
Lang Pools & Cont'l Ins. Co. v. McINTOSH, 433 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…PER CURIAM. This cause reoccurs following remand pursuant to this court’s opinion of June 23, 1982, reported at 415 So. 2d 842 (Fla.App. 1982). Subsequent to remand, the parties agreed to submit written interrogatories to Dr. Dave. The answers to those interrogatories indicate that the doctor’s opinion as to causation is not dependent upon the inaccurate history of a fall.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kendell v. State, 411 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Gold Coast Paving Co., Inc. v. Baltazar Fonseca, 411 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)