JOANN HICKS, APPELLANT,
v.
PUTNAM COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AND HOME INSURANCE 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.
The court held that the deputy commissioner must determine Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) and provide findings of fact to support that determination. The court affirmed the finding that the cardiac condition was not causally connected to the accident.
The claimant appealed a workers' compensation order denying temporary total disability, permanent total disability, and wage loss benefits, and findin…
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 Claim For Workers' Compensation Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Hicks appeals from a workers’ compensation order contending the deputy erred in finding that she was not entitled to TTD benefits, PTD benefits or wage loss benefits and that her cardiac condition was not causally connected to her industrial accident. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
The issue of MMI was raised by the pretrial stipulation and was raised at the hearing. The resolution of this issue is vital to the determination of Hicks’ claim for TTD benefits. The treating physician set MMI in a letter to the E/C but later stated that Hicks had not reached MMI. The deputy made no finding of MMI.
We must reverse on this issue and remand to the deputy for the purpose of determining MMI and for a statement of her findings of fact supporting her determination of MMI.
A deputy must adjudicate all issues which are presented and ripe for disposition. Estech General Chemical Corp. v. Graham, 424 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Because the evidence in this case is conflicting on the date of MMI, it is necessary that the deputy set forth her findings of fact so that we might determine how she reached her conclusion and if supported by CSE. Kennedy v. Tyson, 382 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Brown v. Griffin, 229 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1969).
Hicks concedes that there is no proof in the record of a causal relationship between the accident and her heart condition. We, therefore, affirm on this issue.
JOANOS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ward v. Leon Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Royal Ins. Co., 538 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…the deputy commissioner for appropriate findings on the issue of attorney’s fees based on the full amount of temporary total disability benefits attributable to the efforts of claimant’s attorney. See, generally, Hicks v. Putnam County School Board, 464 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Ellerbee v. Concorde Roofing Co., 461 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We reach a similar result with regard to the second issue, albeit for different reasons. The deputy commissioner’s order is addressed solely to the propriety…
-
Dep't OF Transportation/State OF Fla. & Alexsis v. Beverly Brown (White), 589 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…of facts in sufficient detail to enable this court to determine how the Judge reached his or her conclusion, omitted certain findings, lacked sufficient findings, or contained contradictory statements. See, e.g., Hicks v. Putnam County School Board, 464 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Courtesy Corporation v. Holland, 538 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Reversal has been required where orders failed to make detailed and specific findings in connection with the nature of a claimant’s work search in light of all…
-
Hicks v. Putnam Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Home Ins. Co., 510 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…g an appeal of that order, this court affirmed the denial of benefits but remanded the case “for the purpose of determining MMI,” finding that the deputy commissioner had erred in failing to determine that issue. Hicks v. Putnam County School Board, 464 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). At the hearing on remand, appellant attempted to raise the issue of a psychological component to her original injury, and proffered testimony of a psychologist. In a December 30, 1985 order, the deputy commissioner determined th…
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
- Brown v. Joseph Griffin & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 229 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1969)
- Prince Kennedy, Jr. v. Tyson, 382 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Estech Gen. Chems. Corp. & Fred S. James & Co. of Fla., Inc. v. Graham, 424 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)