CATALYTIC, INC., AND G.A.B. BUSINESS SERVICES, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
RONALD HUGULEY, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
This workers' compensation appeal addresses whether a deputy commissioner properly reserved jurisdiction on a permanent total disability claim pending potential surgery. The court affirms the average weekly wage calculation but reverses and remands the decision to reserve judgment on permanent total disability benefits, holding that the issue was ripe for decision when the claimant had reached maximum medical improvement.
The court held that the deputy commissioner erred in reserving jurisdiction on the permanent total disability issue because it was ripe for determination once maximum medical improvement was established. A claimant's reasonable refusal of risky surgery does not justify deferring a permanent total disability determination and does not prejudice entitlement to compensation benefits.
[1] A deputy commissioner's finding of average weekly wage will be affirmed if supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record.
[2] A claimant's legitimate fear of serious risks incident to recommended surgery is a reasonable excuse for failure to undergo surgery and does not prejudice entitlement to…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Since the final hearing was held on April 13, 1984, the permanent total disability issue was ripe for determination and should have been decided at that time.”
Establishes that once maximum medical improvement is established, the permanent total disability determination becomes ripe for immediate decision at the final hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant reached maximum medical improvement on September 16, 1982. The parties stipulated to this fact, which the deputy commissioner found suppo…
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 Average Weekly Wage Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The employer/carrier appeals, and the claimant cross-appeals, an order of the deputy commissioner setting claimant’s average weekly wage, awarding temporary partial disability benefits and wage-loss benefits, and reserving jurisdiction to determine entitlement to permanent total disability benefits at a later date. We affirm in part and reverse in part. With respect to the employer/carrier’s poipt on appeal, we find competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the deputy’s finding of average weekly wage and, accordingly, affirm such finding. There was no error in using Section 440.14(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1981), in view of the facts so found.
As to the cross-appeal, claimant argues that he was entitled to a determination of his right to permanent total disability benefits and that the deputy erred in reserving jurisdiction of this issue for one year and deferring a decision on the ground there was a chance claimant would undergo a surgical procedure that might significantly improve his condition. The parties stipulated that claimant had reached maximum medical improvement on September 16, 1982, and the deputy found the medical evidence supported this fact. Since the final hearing was held on April 13, 1984, the permanent total disability issue was ripe for determination and should have been decided at that time.
The deputy attempted to support his reservation of jurisdiction by reasoning that an award of permanent total disability benefits might discourage claimant from undergoing surgery and possibly improving his condition. The record clearly reveals and the deputy so found, however, that claimant had chosen not to undergo surgery because of the risks involved and that his choice was reasonable in light of such risks. It is well settled that a legitimate fear of serious risks incident to recommended surgery is a reasonable excuse for failure to undergo surgery and does not prejudice a claimant’s entitlement to compensation benefits. Henderson v. Booth, 281 So. 2d 350 (Fla.1973).
Accordingly, the deputy erred in reserving jurisdiction of the permanent total disability issue for decision at a later date. We reverse and remand for determination of claimant’s entitlement to permanent total disability benefits.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
WENTWORTH, NIMMONS and ZEH-MER, JJ., concur.