DAVID P. MAGGARD, APPELLANT,
v.
SIMPSON MOTORS, AND SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE COMPANY, C/O CRAWFORD AND COMPANY, 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.
Maggard appealed a workers' compensation denial of wage loss benefits based on alleged permanent physical impairment. The court affirmed, holding that permanent impairment must be proven using the AMA Guides or other generally accepted medical criteria, not merely subjective complaints of chronic pain.
Permanent physical impairment must be proved by testimony based on the AMA Guides, unless such impairment cannot reasonably be determined under those criteria, in which case testimony based on the Manual for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons or other generally accepted medical criteria may be used. Testimony based solely on subjective complaints of chronic pain is insufficient.
[1] A claimant's permanent physical impairment must be proved by testimony based on the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.
[2] Permanent physical impairment may be proved by testimony based on the Manual for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeo…
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“we have not gone so far as to approve a permanent impairment rating based on the claimant's subjective complaints of chronic pain”
Establishes that subjective pain complaints alone cannot support a permanent impairment finding
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaggard was injured and treated by Dr. Frank Field, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, beginning in October 1981. Dr. Field opined that Maggard rea…
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 To The Evaluation Of Permanent Impairment cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Maggard appeals from an order of the deputy commissioner denying his claim for wage loss benefits. We affirm.
At the hearing on Maggard’s claim, the deputy commissioner received into evidence the deposition of Dr. Frank Field, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who began treating Maggard in October 1981. On the issue of whether Maggard had sustained any permanent physical impairment, Dr. Field offered the following opinion:
A. He came in — I thought he reached MMI on 4/14/82. I gave him a five-percent impairment and again I can’t, I can’t use the AMA guide on that. It’s just his chronic pain. It was my assumption that he had aggravated some pre-existing degenerative changes in the middorsal. I gave him a five-percent impairment.
Q. Based on subjective complaints? A. Yes.
The deputy commissioner denied the claim, finding that Maggard had conducted an inadequate work search and that he had no permanent physical impairment rating in accordance with the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.
On appeal, Maggard concedes that his job search was inadequate, but contends that the testimony of Dr. Field was sufficient to show that he had sustained a permanent physical impairment cognizable under the provisions of Chapter 440. We disagree.
Although we have held that medical testimony on the issue of permanent impairment need not necessarily be based on the AMA Guides, Trindade v. Abbey Road Beef ’N Booze, 443 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), we have not gone so far as to approve a permanent impairment rating based on the claimant’s subjective complaints of chronic pain. We now hold that the existence and degree of permanent physical impairment must be proved by testimony based on the AMA Guides, unless such impairment cannot reasonably be determined under the criteria utilized in the Guides. In such cases, permanent impairment may be proved by testimony based on the Manual for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, as authorized by Rule 38F-3.175, Florida Administrative Code, or by testimony based on “other generally accepted medical criteria for determining impairment.” Trindade, supra, at 1012.
AFFIRMED.
SHIVERS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Gallagher Bassett Ins. Serv. v. McDANIEL, 465 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…ent cannot reasonably be determined under the criteria utilized in the Guides, in which event such permanent impairment may be established under other generally accepted medical criteria for determining impairment. And in Maggard v. Simpson Motors, 451 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), we stated: Although we have held that medical testimony on the issue of permanent impairment need not necessarily be based on the AMA Guides, Trindade v. Abbey Road Beef ’N Booze, 443 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), we have no…1 / 2
-
Shop & GO, Inc. v. Hart, 537 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…n v. Wellcraft Marine, 509 So. 2d 1195 at 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); United General Construction v. Cason, 479 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Martin County School Board v. McDaniel, 465 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Cf. Maggard v. Simpson Motors, 451 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). As in Martin County School Board v. McDaniel, supra, the treating physician in the instant case monitored the claimant’s complaints for an extended period of time (two and one half years) and his records indicate an evaluation o…
-
Gates Energy Prods. & Alexsis Risk Mgmt. v. Wheeler, 637 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…nt Impairment, (2nd ed. 1984), in Table 4, entitled Grading Scheme and Procedure for Determining Impairment of Affected Body Part Due to Pain, Discomfort or Loss of Sensation. The Employer/Carrier’s Bench Memorandum cites Maggard v. Simpson Motors, 451 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), for the proposition that the existence in degree of permanent physical impairment must be proved by testimony based on the AMA Guidelines and cannot be based on claimant’s complaints of pain alone. In the instant case, there wa…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Trindade v. Abbey Road Beef 'N Booze, 443 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)