FLORIDA WELDING & ERECTION SERVICE AND U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
JERALD MARTIN, 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.
The court held that the deputy commissioner did not err in awarding evaluation and treatment by Dr. Stanford, nor in awarding wage-loss benefits.
[1] A deputy commissioner may order an independent medical evaluation and treatment by a physician when there is a conflict in the medical opinions of previously treating phy…
[2] A conflict in medical opinions sufficient to justify an independent medical evaluation exists when one physician finds no specific pathology related to the accident, whil…
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 intelligenceThe employer/carrier appealed two orders from a deputy commissioner: one awarding evaluation and treatment by Dr. Stanford, and another awarding wage-…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
In this workers’ compensation case, the employer/carrier appeal two orders of a deputy commissioner. One order awards evaluation and treatment, if necessary, by Dr. F. DeWitt Stanford, and the other order awards wage-loss benefits. We affirm.
Appellants first contend that the deputy commissioner erred in awarding evaluation and treatment by Dr. Stanford, an orthopedic surgeon, because claimant had already been seen and treated by two orthopedic surgeons and there was no conflict in the medical opinions of those two doctors. Appellants cite section 440.-25(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1983) and K-Mart Corp. v. Nasoni, 377 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). We think, however, that sufficient conflict existed in the respective deposition testimonies of Drs. Urbach and Pearson to justify the evaluation by Dr. Stanford pursuant to section 440.25(3)(b). Dr. Urbach testified that he found no specific pathology which could be directly related to the industrial accident. Dr. Pearson, however, opined that claimant had an acute lumbosacral sprain resulting from his industrial accident. Therefore, we find Na-soni inapplicable.
Competent substantial evidence supports the deputy commissioner’s finding that claimant sustained a permanent impairment as a result of the industrial accident. Dr. Stanford testified that claimant had an overall permanent physical impairment of 37% to the body as a whole based on the AMA Guides. He testified that 2% of this permanent impairment was causally related to the industrial accident of February 15, 1980. The fact that Dr. Stanford relied upon the history provided by claimant in making his assessment does not render the doctor’s opinion incompetent. The factual assumptions upon which Dr. Stanford based his opinion are supported by record evidence in the form of claimant’s testimony.
Because the deputy commissioner did not err in awarding wage-loss benefits, there is no error in the award of costs and in the reservation of jurisdiction for the determination of a reasonable attorney’s fee.
AFFIRMED.
MILLS and WIGGINTON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanlando Reprographics & State Farm Ins. Co. v. Vidimos, 545 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…y have rheumatological origins. An additional medical evaluation may be ordered by a deputy pursuant to section 440.-25(3)(b), Florida Statutes, in cases involving a conflict in the medical evidence. See Florida Welding & Erection Service v. Martin, 452 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). But the present case does not involve such conflict. And while an additional evaluation might be approved in accordance with the deputy’s investigatory authority pursuant to section 440.29(1), Florida Statutes, this cost may not…
Authorities Cited
- K-Mart Corp. v. Nasoni, 377 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)