RINKER MATERIALS CORP. AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
DENNIS HILL, 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.
Rinker Materials and Liberty Mutual Insurance appealed a workers' compensation order awarding a claimant 30% permanent partial disability based on combined orthopedic and psychiatric impairments. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that separate disability ratings from two treating physicians covering different body systems and impairments can be combined, distinguishing prior precedent that prohibited combining ratings for a single condition.
The court held that the Deputy Commissioner properly awarded 30% permanent partial disability by combining the separate impairment ratings of the two physicians. Where a claimant suffers from two separate physical impairments affecting different body systems, each rated at 15% by treating physicians, the disability ratings can be combined, and section 440.25(3)(b) does not preclude such combination.
[1] A deputy commissioner may combine separate permanent partial disability ratings from different physicians when those ratings address distinct physical impairments resulti…
[2] The term "physical impairment" in the context of workers' compensation law includes both orthopedic and psychiatric conditions.
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“No judge of industrial claims shall either make a finding of, or award compensation for, a disability for physical impairment that is greater than the greatest disability given the claimant by any examining or treating physician, except upon stipulation of the parties.”
Establishes the statutory language governing impairment ratings that the employer/carrier relied upon
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDennis Hill suffered an industrial accident on October 26, 1978. Dr. Ticktin, an orthopedic specialist, testified that Hill had a 15% permanent partia…
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 Physical Impairment cases and more on FLexlaw
ZEHMER, Judge.
The employer and carrier appeal an order of the Deputy Commissioner granting permanent partial disability benefits and ongoing medical care, including palliative psychiatric care. We affirm.
The claimant was injured in an industrial accident on October 26, 1978. The employer and carrier argue that the deputy erred in finding claimant’s disability rating to be 30% of the body as a whole based on the testimony of Dr. Ticktin, an orthopedic specialist, that claimant has a 15% permanent partial impairment due to his orthopedic condition and the testimony of Dr. Gilbert, a psychiatrist, that claimant has a 15% permanent partial impairment based on his psychiatric condition. The employer and carrier rely on Florida Department of Corrections v. Carro, 410 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), to support their contention that the deputy erred in granting a permanent partial disability rating in excess of claimant’s 15% orthopedic impairment rating given by Dr. Ticktin. They argue that under section 440.25(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1978 Supp.), the deputy could not give an impairment rating greater than the 15% testified to by Dr. Ticktin without finding a diminution of wage-earning capacity in excess of 15%.
Section 440.25(3) at the time of claimant’s injury provided:
No judge of industrial claims shall either make a finding of, or award compensation for, a disability for physical impairment that is greater than the greatest disability given the claimant by any examining or treating physician, except upon stipulation of the parties.
We do not agree with the employer and carrier’s contention because Dr. Ticktin and Dr. Gilbert were both treating physicians and the orthopedic and psychiatric disabilities described by each of them involved separate parts of the body with different manifestations of impairment. Our opinion in Carro is inapplicable because the claimant in that case was suffering from only one physical disability, i.e., headaches. The two impairment ratings which we held could-not be combined in Carro were given by a physician and a psychologist solely with respect to claimant’s headaches and their resulting effect on physical functions. In the present case, on the other hand, claimant is suffering from an orthopedic impairment and a separate psychiatric impairment which has resulted from his injury and other related circumstances. Since claimant has two separate impairments and there is medical testimony that each impairment constitutes at 15% permanent partial disability, the deputy as the fact finder could find a permanent partial disability up to 30% of the body as a whole. The term “physical impairment” in section 440.25(3)(b) includes psychiatric conditions as well as orthopedic conditions. Racz v. Chennault, Inc., 418 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
The language in section 440.25(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1978 Supp.), that the disability shall not be greater than that given claimant by “any” examining or treating physician does not mean that the deputy is foreclosed from combining the disability ratings of two physicians when each physician has testified to a separate physical impairment.
There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the disability ratings given by Dr. Ticktin and Dr. Gil bert. Although Dr. Ticktin’s testimony is not a model of clarity, it was the deputy’s function as fact finder to resolve the obvious ambiguities revealed through cross-examination.
AFFIRMED.
WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Racz v. Chennault, Inc., 418 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Rinker Materials Corp. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hill, 471 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- City OF Hallandale v. Acmar Eng'g Corp., 410 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)