METRIC CONSTRUCTORS, INC. AND AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
EARNEST CHILES, 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.
Metric Constructors and its surety appealed a workers' compensation award of medical and temporary total disability benefits for an employee's post-injury epididymitis. The court reversed, holding that the claimant failed to establish a causal connection between the industrial accident and the epididymitis, as the medical evidence was speculative rather than establishing reasonable medical probability of causation.
The court held that the claimant failed to establish causation based on reasonable medical probability. The urologist's speculative testimony and the claimant's lay testimony regarding pain onset were insufficient as a matter of law to prove the causal link required under workers' compensation law. Additionally, the award of temporary total disability benefits was reversed because the claimant continued working until two weeks before his surgery, making the TTD award inappropriate for the period in question.
[1] A workers' compensation claimant must prove a causal connection between employment and injury, and causation will not be presumed.
[2] A workers' compensation claimant must prove causation based upon reasonable medical probability.
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“A workers' compensation claimant must prove the existence of a causal connection between his employment and the injury. The existence of causation will not be presumed.”
Establishes the fundamental burden of proof requirement in workers' compensation cases—claimant must affirmatively prove causation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEarnest Chiles, a 27-year-old industrial worker, was injured on October 27, 1980, when he attempted to lift a load of concrete over his head. He immed…
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 Reasonable Medical Probability cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Metric Constructors, Inc. and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company (E/C) seek review of a deputy commissioner’s order which awarded medical and temporary total disability (TTD) benefits to Chiles. Chiles failed to establish a causal connection between the industrial accident and his epidi-dymitis. We reverse.
Chiles, a 27-year-old industrial worker, was injured at work on 27 October 1980 when he picked up a load of concrete and attempted to lift it over his head. Immediately following the accident, he felt pain in his right testicle and later developed a knot in his abdominal area. Dr. Butler diagnosed the abdominal pain as resulting from a hernia. He subsequently performed surgery to repair the condition. The E/C paid all benefits due as a result of the hernia.
When Chiles continued to suffer pain in his testicle, he was referred to Dr. Helm-ling, a urologist. Dr. Helmling diagnosed Chiles’ condition as epididymitis — an inflammation of the tubules which connect the testicle to the vas deferens. After drug therapy failed to cure this pain, Dr. Helm-ling performed surgery to remove the epididymis.
He testified that the epididymitis was possibly, but not probably, related to the industrial accident or subsequent hernia repair. He stated that epididymitis can occur either spontaneously, as a result of infection, or as a result of some trauma-related injury. He never detected any abnormal amount of infection in Chiles and was of the opinion that it was speculative to connect the industrial accident and epididymi-tis.
Chiles testified at the hearing that he had never experienced pain in his testicle before the injury and that he had begun to feel the pain immediately thereafter. Based upon this testimony, the deputy commissioner found that “the logical cause of this condition was the original injury and the resulting surgery. There is no evidence of any pre-existing condition or of any other subsequent occurrence that could reasonably be said to have caused the condition.” We hold that the deputy commissioner erred in so finding.
A workers’ compensation claimant must prove the existence of a causal connection between his employment and the injury. The existence of causation will not be presumed. Gadsden County Board of Public Instruction v. Dickson, 191 So. 2d 562 (Fla.1966). Moreover, we have repeatedly held that the claimant must prove the existence of causation based upon reasonable medical probability. Orange County Board of County Commissioners v. Brenemen, 233 So. 2d 377 (Fla.1970); Decks, Inc. of Florida v. Wright, 389 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Scotty’s, Inc. v. Jones, 393 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Dr. Helmling’s speculation as to the cause of Chiles’ epididymitis is not sufficient to establish causation based upon reasonable medical probability.
Nor is the testimony of Chiles, even when coupled with that of Dr. Helm-ling, sufficient to establish causation. While reasonable medical probability may be established by lay or medical testimony, lay testimony is not sufficient to establish a causal relationship between the accident and conditions which are not readily observable or discoverable without medical examination. Although Chiles could testify as to the existence arid location of the pain, epidi-dymitis is not the type of affliction which is readily observable or discoverable without medical examination. Therefore, his bare assertions that he had never before experienced this type of pain and that the pain began to occur after the injury are not sufficient to establish causation.
Even if Chiles had proved causation, we still would be compelled to reverse that portion of the order which awarded TTD benefits. The deputy commissioner found that Chiles was temporarily totally disabled from 27 March 1981 to 11 June 1981, at which time he returned to work. Chiles himself testified however that he worked up until two weeks before the epididymec-tomy, which was performed on 11 May. It was error to award TTD benefits for a period during which Chiles was on the job. Cling Electric, Inc. v. Jones, 376 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
Reversed.
ERVIN, J., and AGNER, ROYCE (Associate Judge), concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Closet Maid & Crawford & Co. v. Sykes, 763 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…nough to show so much as a causal connection, unless a cause was readily observable.10 See Arand, 592 So. at 281; Sunshine Plumbing v. Benecke, 558 So. 2d 162, 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Turner, 438 So. 2d at 1032; Metric Constructors, Inc. v. Chiles, 429 So. 2d 1292, 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); University Inns v. Davis, 413 So. 2d 128, 130 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); McCall v. Dick Burns, Inc., 408 So. 2d 787, 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Scotty’s, 393 So. 2d at 659; Decks, 389 So. 2d at 1076. “For conditions not readily o…
-
Martin Marietta Corp. & Scott Wetzel Servs. v. Glumb, 523 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…conditions such as high blood pressure, which are [*1194] not readily observable or discoverable without medical examination. Decks, Inc. of Florida v. Wright, 389 So. 2d 1074, 1076 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). See also Metric Constructors, Inc. v. Chiles, 429 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Two of the above cited cases present fact scenarios analogous to that presented in the instant case. In Lake v. Irwin Yacht & Marine, the employee’s breathing difficulties coincided with her employment at Irwin Yacht. Her dutie…
-
Thomas v. The Salvation Army & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 562 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…the employment and injury for which benefits are sought, and the existence of causation must be based upon reasonable medical probability. Computer Products, Inc. v. Williams, 530 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Metric Constructors, Inc. v. Chiles, 429 So. 2d 1292, 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Scotty’s, Inc. v. Jones, 393 So. 2d 657, 658-659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Medical evidence as to causation is particularly significant where, as in the instant case, the subject injury is not readily observable. In such instan…
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
- Johnson v. The Prosecuting Attorney FOR the Court OF Record, 233 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1970)
- Redgate v. Nat'l Soc'y FOR the Prevention OF Blindness, Inc., 389 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Decks v. Wright, 389 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Charity Ann Murvin v. State, 393 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Scotty's, Inc. v. Jones, 393 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Cling Elec., Inc. v. Jones, 376 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Gadsden Cnty. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction v. Dickson, 191 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1966)