ANTOINETTE MATSON, APPELLANT,
v.
HOBEAU FARMS, LTD. AND CORPORATE GROUP SERVICE, INC., APPELLEES
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.
The court held that the deputy commissioner's finding of no causal relationship between the industrial accident and the claimant's ruptured disc was not supported by the evidence.
[1] A deputy commissioner's finding of no causal relationship between an industrial accident and a subsequent injury is not supported by logic and reason when medical testimo…
[2] A claimant's testimony regarding symptoms experienced after an automobile accident is consistent with medical testimony that those symptoms were the same as those experie…
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 intelligenceA claimant sought benefits for a ruptured disc in her neck, which the deputy commissioner found stemmed from a later automobile accident and not an ea…
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 Medical Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Claimant appeals from the order of the deputy commissioner denying her claim for benefits on the basis that the ruptured disc in claimant’s neck stemmed from an automobile accident and was not causally related to her earlier industrial accident. We reverse.
The deputy’s finding of no causal relationship does not comport with logic and reason in light of the unanimous medical testimony that claimant’s condition following the industrial injury was exacerbated by the automobile accident, and that the injury sustained in the latter accident could not stand alone.
Moreover, there is no basis for the deputy’s finding that the tingling sensation in claimant’s hands and arms began only after the automobile accident. Claimant’s testimony was consistent with that of the medical testimony that her symptoms after the automobile accident were those same symptoms she had experienced after the work-related accident.
Finally, claimant’s remarks to her physicians that her symptoms from the industrial accident had subsided by the time of the automobile accident were only probative of simple matters such as the existence and location of pain, sequence of events, and other factors within her actual knowledge and sensory experience, but were insufficient, standing alone, as evidence to defeat a finding of causal relationship between the industrial accident and her ruptured disc, a condition not readily observable or discoverable without medical examination. McCall v. Dick Burns, Inc., 408 So. 2d 787, 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Decks, Inc. of Florida v. Wright, 389 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Under the circumstances, it was incumbent upon the deputy to defer to the opinion of the physicians.
There is competent and substantial evidence comporting with logic and reason in the record to support a finding of causal relationship, and therefore of compensability. The deputy’s order is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for further pro ceedings on the issue of the benefits claimed.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- McCALL v. Dick Burns, Inc., 408 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)