PINEBREEZE FARMS, INC., & FLORIDA FARM BUREAU, APPELLANTS,
v.
TONI V. MORAN, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed an award of benefits to an injured worker but reversed the portion awarding disability benefits for surgery related to an unrelated ovarian cyst. The court held that workers' compensation cannot cover disability from conditions unattributable to the industrial injury.
The claimant is not entitled to workers' compensation benefits for disability from hospitalization and recovery from the unrelated surgical procedure because the compensable industrial injury did not contribute to that disability. Temporary disability benefits between January 5, 1981, and February 8, 1981, must be deleted from the award.
[1] Workers' compensation benefits are not recoverable for disability occasioned by a condition unrelated to the industrial injury, even if the claimant was unable to work du…
[2] Medical testimony establishing that a claimant's condition is independent of an industrial accident and injury, when uncontradicted, supports a finding that the condition…
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“Claimant is therefore not entitled to workers' compensation benefits for that disability from the time of her hospitalization on January 5, 1981, to her ultimate surgical recovery on February 8, 1981, since her compensable injury did not contribute to such disability.”
Establishes the holding that disability benefits cannot be awarded when the disability results from an unrelated, non-industrial cause
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant sustained an industrial injury diagnosed as acute lumbar strain. During medical examination, an unrelated ovarian cyst was discovered that re…
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 Ama Guides cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Employer/carrier appeal a workers’ compensation order which we affirm except insofar as the order awards benefits for disability occasioned by surgery not attributable to the industrial injury.
Claimant sustained an industrial injury which was diagnosed as an acute lumbar strain. A subsequent physical examination also revealed an unrelated ovarian cyst, which was later found to be so enlarged as to require surgery. Pathological examination of the cyst after surgery showed that it had not ruptured, and substantiated an enlargement due to hormonal imbalance independent of the industrial injury. This medical testimony is uncontradieted and establishes that the hormonal imbalance and enlarged cyst were unrelated to claimant’s industrial accident and injury. Neither the order nor record evidence relates claimant’s temporary gynecological symptoms at the time of her accident to her later condition, by aggravation or otherwise.
Claimant’s industrial injury precluded her return to her former employment, but she was able to obtain part-time employment subsequent to her industrial accident. She necessarily ceased such employment during her hospitalization for and recovery from the surgical removal of her cyst, and the evidence establishes that her inability to continue that employment was due exclusively to the non-industrial cause. Claimant is therefore not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for that disability from the time of her hospitalization on January 5, 1981, to her ultimate surgical recovery on February 8, 1981, since her compensable injury did not contribute to such disability.
We find an adequate record basis for the deputy’s resolution of other evidentiary issues raised by appellants as to temporary benefits during a period of vocational rehabilitation, and as to the necessity for finding permanent impairment in accordance with the AMA Guides as a predicate for permanent wage loss benefits. On the latter point we note the absence of any such specifically articulated defense before the deputy. See The Wash House v. Tucker, 413 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
The order appealed is accordingly amended so as to delete the award of temporary disability benefits between January 5, 1981, and February 8, 1981. As amended, the order appealed is affirmed.
BOOTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The Wash House & S.C. Ins. Co. v. Tucker, 413 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)