THE COCA-COLA COMPANY-FOODS DIVISION AND GENERAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES A. HAWK & DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the deputy commissioner's award of temporary partial disability (TPD) and wage loss benefits to an employee who suffered a compensable back injury. The employer/carrier challenged the award, but the court found the deputy commissioner's findings regarding maximum medical improvement, permanent impairment, and wage loss benefits were supported by competent evidence.
The court affirmed the award of TPD benefits for the period February 8, 1983 through February 25, 1983, based on Dr. Mahan's determination of maximum medical improvement and competent evidence of adequate job search. The court also affirmed the permanent impairment rating and resulting wage loss benefits, finding Dr. Mahan's testimony competent to establish permanent impairment despite the limitations of the AMA Guides.
[1] A physician's testimony, based on training, experience, and expertise, can establish permanent impairment for wage loss benefits even if the AMA Guides do not account for…
[2] A claimant's job search must be adequate to support an award of temporary partial disability benefits.
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 only competent evidence of claimant's maximum medical improvement date is found in Dr. Mahan's report and deposition, Ardmore Farms, Inc. v. Squires, 395 So.2d 268, 270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), such date given as February 25, 1983.”
Establishes the basis for upholding the maximum medical improvement date and thus the TPD award period.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant James A. Hawk suffered a compensable back injury on July 27, 1982. Dr. Mahan examined the claimant and determined his maximum medical improve…
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
WIGGINTON, Judge.
In this workers’ compensation appeal, the employer/carrier challenge the deputy commissioner’s award of temporary partial disability and wage loss benefits to claimant for his compensable back injury which occurred on July 27, 1982. We affirm.
The only competent evidence of claimant’s maximum medical improvement date is found in Dr. Mahan’s report and deposition, Ardmore Farms, Inc. v. Squires, 395 So. 2d 268, 270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), such date given as February 25, 1983. That finding, coupled with sufficient competent record evidence of an adequate job search, requires our approval of the deputy’s award of TPD benefits for the period February 8, 1983, through February 25, 1983.
The E/C’s claim of error by the deputy in finding permanent impairment based on Dr. Mahan’s testimony is without merit. The doctor testified that although he applied the AMA Guides to claimant’s injury, the Guides did not take into consideration claimant’s physical condition con sisting of a bulging disc that was definitely-connected with the accident and injury. He therefore relied on his training, experience and expertise in assigning claimant a permanent impairment rating. The testimony went unrebutted by the E/C. Under Trindade v. Abbey Road Beef ’N Booze, 443 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), and Rhaney v. Dobbs House, Inc., 415 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), Dr. Mahan’s testimony was competent to establish the requisite permanent impairment for wage loss. Cf. Maggard v. Simpson Motors, et al., 451 So. 2d 529 (1984) (physician’s permanent impairment rating based solely on claimant’s subjective complaints of chronic pain not competent substantial evidence on which the deputy could base a finding of permanent impairment cognizable under provisions of chapter 440).
Finally, we find no error in the deputy commissioner’s award of wage loss benefits following claimant’s reaching MMI. There is competent substantial evidence establishing claimant’s work search as required by this Court’s holding in City of Clermont v. Rumph, 450 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
AFFIRMED.
MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- City OF Clermont & Aetna Ins. Co. v. Rumph, 450 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Ada Rhaney v. Dobbs House, 415 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Trindade v. Abbey Road Beef 'N Booze, 443 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Ardmore Farms, Inc. v. Squires, 395 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Maggard v. Simpson Motors, 451 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)