SEMINOLE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND GALLAGHER-BASSETT INSURANCE SERVICE, APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES CHAPLIN, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed an award of catastrophic loss benefits to an injured worker, holding that the deputy commissioner's findings were insufficient under the statutory requirements. The court required that total loss of arm use due to organic nervous system damage must be established by medical evidence, not merely by judicial observation and demeanor.
The court held that the deputy's findings were insufficient because they failed to explicitly find a total loss of use of the arm as required by statute. The court further held that loss of arm use due to organic nervous system damage must be established by medical evidence, not merely by the deputy's observations of demeanor or testimony alone.
[1] A claimant must demonstrate both the total loss of use of an arm and that such loss is because of organic damage to the nervous system to be entitled to catastrophic loss…
[2] A deputy commissioner's determination of loss of use of an arm due to organic damage to the nervous system cannot be based solely on the claimant's demeanor or testimony.
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“A Deputy's determination that a claimant has sustained loss of use of his arm because of organic damage to the nervous system cannot be based merely on his observations and the claimant's demeanor or testimony alone. Loss of use of the arm because of organic damage to the nervous system must be established by medical evidence.”
Establishes the key evidentiary requirement that medical evidence, not judicial observation alone, is required to support catastrophic loss benefits findings.
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 Chaplin sustained a workplace injury resulting in a right C-6 hemilaminectomy and diskectomy with foraminotomy. The deputy commissioner…
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 Organic Damage To The Nervous System cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
The employer/carrier (E/C) appeal an order awarding catastrophic loss benefits. We reverse and remand.
The deputy commissioner (deputy) found claimant to be entitled to catastrophic loss benefits pursuant to § 440.15(2)(b), Fla. Stat. He went on to explain:
I make this finding principally based on the demeanor and testimony of the Claimant as he testified before me. I was able to observe that the Claimant had marked and severe limitations of his right arm. Based on his testimony and my careful observations it is obvious that Claimant has lost the use of his right arm.
Based on my review of the medical records composite, it is uncontradicted that the Claimant did sustain some organic damage to his central nervous system. I specifically take note that Mr. Chaplin had a right C-6 Hemilaminecto-my and Diskectomy with Foraminotomy performed. Dr. St. Louis indicated in his report of December 15 that the Claimant exhibited weakness and sensory changes consimerate [sic] with the surgery. I also make this finding based on my ob servations of the Claimant as he testified before me which conclusively demonstrated organic damage to the Claimant’s nervous system.
Whether the loss of use of an arm is the result of organic damage to the nervous system is a question of fact for the deputy. Hernandez v. Equipment Co. of America, 452 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Before the deputy makes any such finding, however, the claimant must demonstrate (1) the total loss of use of an arm (2) because of organic damage to the nervous system. Atlantic Plastering, Inc. v. O’Hara, 454 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The deputy’s findings fall short of satisfying these requirements.
The final order states that claimant was found to have “lost the use of his right arm” and that the existence of organic damage to the claimant’s nervous system was “conclusively demonstrated.” However, the deputy failed to find that claimant had sustained a total loss of use as required by § 440.15(2)(b). If a total loss of use is found, then the deputy must also find that such loss is because of organic damage to the claimant’s nervous system. Hernandez v. Equipment Co. of America, 452 So. 2d at 86.
A Deputy’s determination that a claimant has sustained loss of use of his arm because of organic damage to the nervous system cannot be based merely on his observations and the claimant’s demeanor or testimony alone. Loss of use of the arm because of organic damage to the nervous system must be established by medical evidence.
Accordingly, the award of catastrophic loss benefits is reversed and the case is remanded to the deputy for a determination of (1) whether the claimant has sustained a total loss of use of his right arm, and if so, (2) whether such loss is because of organic damage to the nervous system.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BOOTH and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Uniweld Prods., Inc. v. Nelly Lopez and Division of Workers' Compensation, 511 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…that the loss in this case had any of the permanency characteristics suggested by the language of the statute. . L.G.H. Construction Company v. Gonzalez, 466 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Seminole County Board of County Commissioners v. Chaplin, 460 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Atlantic Plastering, Inc. v. O'Hara, 454 So. 2d 743 (1st DCA 1984); Hernandez v. Equipment Company of America, Adjusto, Inc., 452 So. 2d 85 (1st DCA 1984); Marriott In-Flite Services v. Garcia, 450 So. 2d 569 (1st DCA 1984); E.B…
-
LGH Constr. Co. v. Gonzalez, 466 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…America, Adjusto, Inc., 452 So. 2d 85, 86 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). “[T]he claimant must demonstrate (1) the total loss of use of an [*403] arm (2) because of organic damage to the nervous system. Seminole County Board of County Commissioners v. Chaplin, 460 So. 2d 544, 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (emphasis in original). Regarding the first requirement, the claimant here was required to prove “the inability to perform functions required in an industrial setting considered in light of the use which ... [he] must reason…
-
Bordo Citrus Prods. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tedder, 518 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…is essential that the evidence show total loss of use of the specified body member because of organic damage to the nervous system, and that this be established by competent medical evidence. Seminole County Board of County Commissioners v. Chaplin, 460 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We conclude that the record contains competent substantial evidence of total loss of use of claimant’s left arm caused by organic damage to the ulnar nerve within the meaning of the statute as construed and applied in Atlantic…
Authorities Cited
- Petrucci v. State, 454 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Hernandez v. Equip. Co. OF Am., 452 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)