MORRISON & KNUDSEN/AMERICAN BRIDGE DIVISION AND CNA INSURANCE GROUP, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM A. SCOTT, 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 a workers' compensation case, the court reversed the Deputy Commissioner's award of wage-loss benefits because the permanent impairment rating was not determined according to the American Medical Association Guides as required by statute. The court held that subjective pain complaints alone are insufficient for assessing lower back injuries and that the applicable tables in the Guides must be used.
The court held that the Deputy Commissioner erred because the American Medical Association Guides must be applied when the injury is covered by the Guides, and for lower back injuries, the applicable tables in the Guides must be used without combining them with subjective factors like pain complaints. The impairment rating was therefore improperly determined.
[1] Workers' compensation wage-loss benefits cannot be awarded based on a permanent impairment rating not determined according to the American Medical Association Guides when…
[2] When the American Medical Association Guides provide specific tables for assessing permanent impairment, the applicable table must be used and cannot be combined with oth…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 applicable table must be used, and it may not be combined with any other table or subjective factor to produce a rating in excess of that permitted.”
Establishes the mandatory requirement that when specific assessment tables exist in the Guides, they must be used exclusively without modification by subjective factors
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 suffered a compensable lower back injury on May 7, 1981, and reached maximum medical improvement on July 31, 1982. Dr. Bourguignon assess…
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 Permanent Impairment Rating cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation action Appellants, employer/carrier, contend that the Deputy Commissioner (the Deputy) erred in awarding wage-loss benefits based on a permanent impairment rating not determined according to the American Medical Association Guides (the Guides) as required by Section 440.15(3)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (1979). We agree and reverse with instructions.
The Claimant suffered a compensable lower back injury on May 7, 1981. It was found that he reached MMI on July 31,1982 and Dr. Bourguignon testified that Claimant had a permanent impairment of 2%. Testimony further indicated that Dr. Bour-guignon based his assessment of impairment on Claimant’s subjective complaints of pain and not on the applicable tables for limitation of range of motion as set out in the Guides. That procedure was insufficient.
Because the Division has yet to adopt a permanent schedule by which impairment may be assessed, the Guides must be applied when the injury in question is covered by the Guides. Decor Painting & Iowa Mutual Insurance Company v. Rohn, 401 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Mathis v. Kelly Construction Company, 417 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Although subjective pain is a factor to be considered when assessing impairment from neurological injuries according to the Guides, see Spring Air Mattress Co. v. Cox, 413 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), it is not a factor to be applied in assessing a permanent impairment resulting from a lower back injury which is covered by Chapter 1 of the Guides. Where specific tables for assessing impairment are set out in the Guides, “the applicable table must be used, and it may not be combined with any other table or subjective factor to produce a rating in excess of that permitted.” Jamar Sportswear, Inc. v. Miller, 413 So. 2d 811, 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Because the Guides were not properly applied in this case, we reverse the Deputy’s Order and remand for the purpose of having claimant’s doctor relate his disability rating to the Guides. Cf. Jamar at 813. We do not address the other points raised by Appellants on this appeal since the threshold question of permanent impairment was improperly answered.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further consistent proceedings.
ERVIN, LARRY G. SMITH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trindade v. Abbey Road Beef 'N Booze, 443 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…Insurance Co. v. Rohn, 401 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Mathis v. Kelly Construction Company, 417 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Jones Mahoney Corporation v. Hutto, 421 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Morrison & Knudsen/American, etc. v. Scott, 423 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Paradise Fruit Company v. Floyd, 425 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Refrigerated Transport Company v. Edmond, 428 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); and Cabrera v. Universal Trusses, Inc., 429 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). More th…1 / 2
-
Gainesville Coca-Cola & Gen. Accident Bureau v. Young, 596 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…blem with pain was “entirely subjective” and involved the tolerance and acceptance of pain. Dr. Borrerro assigned a 1% impairment rating to the body as a whole pursuant to the AMA Guides. Cf. Morrison & Knudsen/American Bridge Div. and CNA v. Scott, 423 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (error to award wage-loss benefits based on permanent impairment rating not determined in accordance with AMA Guides pursuant to section 440.-15(3)(a), F.S.) The evidence supporting the 1% impairment rating was not based solely o…
Authorities Cited
- Spring AIR Mattress Co. v. Celine J. COX, 413 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Mack v. State, 401 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Decor Painting & Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rohn, 401 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Mathis v. Kelly Constr. Co. & Emp'rs Ins. of Wausau, 417 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Jamar Sportswear, Inc. v. Miller, 413 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)