PARADISE FRUIT COMPANY AND MISSION INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARY LUCILLE FLOYD, 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 court held that the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment are mandatory in determining permanent impairment under Florida law, except in cases of obvious visible impairment or injuries not covered by the guides. The court reversed the deputy commissioner's awards of permanent impairment wage loss benefits and temporary total disability benefits because the claimant failed to meet the AMA Guides criteria and did not conduct a required work search.
The AMA Guides are mandatory in determining permanent impairment except when the impairment is obviously visible or the injury is not covered by the guides. Since the claimant did not have a limitation of range of motion as required by the AMA Guides, there was no permanent impairment. Additionally, the temporary total disability award must be reversed because the claimant failed to conduct any work search despite being capable of gainful employment.
[1] The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment are mandatory for determining permanent impairment under Section 440.15(3)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1979), unless t…
[2] A claimant must meet the criteria specified in the AMA Guides to establish a permanent impairment rating.
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 use of the AMA Guides in determining the existence or percentage of permanent impairment is mandatory in most cases with some exceptions such as when the permanent impairment is obviously visible and demonstrable to the deputy such as the loss of an arm or when the particular injury was not covered in the guides.”
Establishes the mandatory nature of the AMA Guides with recognized exceptions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for an injury, claiming permanent impairment and temporary total disability. The treating physician t…
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 Rehabilitation Services cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The primary issue in this workers’ compensation appeal is whether the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) is a mandatory schedule upon which the finding of permanent impairment under Section 440.15(3)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1979), must be based in this case. We find it is.
The use of the AMA Guides in determining the existence or percentage of permanent impairment is mandatory in most cases with some exceptions such as when the permanent impairment is obviously visible and demonstrable to the deputy such as the loss of an arm or when the particular injury was not covered in the guides. See Rhaney v. Dobbs House, Inc., 415 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In this case the treating physician testified that in his opinion. the claimant sustained a permanent impairment, but he admitted on cross-examination that the claimant did not have any limitation of range of motion and that under the AMA Guides an individual must have a limitation of motion in order to have a permanent impairment. Therefore, the claimant did not have a permanent impairment rating under the AMA Guides. Since the AMA Guides cover this particular injury and specify the criteria for determining whether or not it results in any permanent impairment, the AMA Guides must be used and the criteria specified therein must be met in order to find that the claimant sustained a permanent impairment in this case. Accordingly, we must reverse the determination of entitlement to wage loss benefits which was based on the deputy’s finding of permanent anatomic impairment. See Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center v. Snead, 400 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
We must also reverse the deputy commissioner’s award of temporary total disability benefits because the record clearly shows that the claimant did not conduct any work search whatsoever. The testimony by the treating physician that the claimant could not return to work of the type she had been doing before the injury did not excuse a work search. In fact, he stated she was capable of gainful employment. Walter Glades Condominium v. Morris, 393 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). There is no evidence to the contrary other than the claimant’s general opinion that she was unable to work.
Furthermore, it appears that the award of temporary total disability benefits may have been made to penalize the employer/carrier for failure to voluntarily provide rehabilitation services. Section 440.49, Florida Statutes (1979), requires that an application for such services be made to the Division of Workers’ Compensation for an evaluation before an award of such services can be sought from the deputy. Bailey v. Hawes Chrysler-Plymouth, 410 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
We do, however, find competent substantial evidence in the record to support the deputy’s finding that the claimant’s hospitalization for a rash was emergency in nature.
Accordingly, the order of the deputy commissioner is AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
JOANOS, THOMPSON and WIGGIN-TON, 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)…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 than four years have now passed since the legislature imposed upon th…
-
C & H Constr. & Aetna Ins. Co. v. Leyman, 453 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…ion for evaluation before embarking on a rehabilitation program. The legal predicate for the appeal is that two cases from this court, Bailey v. Hawes Chrysler-Plymouth, 410 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) and Paradise Fruit [*1164] Company v. Floyd, 425 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) conflict with Walker v. New Fern Restorium, 409 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) and Hurricane Fence Industries v. Bozman, 413 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Neither in Bailey nor in Paradise Fruit Company is there any factual b…
-
Fla. Sheriffs Youth Fund & Se. Fire Ins. Co. v. Leatrice J. Harrell, 438 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…s when the permanent impairment is obviously visible and demonstrable to the deputy or when the particular injury was not covered in the Guides. See Rhaney v. Dobbs House, Inc., 415 So. 2d 1277, 1280 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Paradise Fruit Co. v. Floyd, 425 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The evidence is undisputed that the impairment resulting from the soft tissue injury described by Dr. Earp is not covered in the AMA Guides. Under virtually indistinguishable circumstances, this Court in Quality Petroleum Corp.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Walter Glades Condo. v. Petunia Morris, 393 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Ada Rhaney v. Dobbs House, 415 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Bailey v. Hawes Chrysler-Plymouth & Lynn Underwriting Co., 410 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Tallahassee Mem'l Reg'l Med. Ctr. & Corporate Grp. Serv., Inc. v. Snead, 400 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)