AUBREY SEIBERT, APPELLANT,
v.
PIERCE, POOLE & KENT COMPANY AND ARGONAUT 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.
Seibert appealed denial of temporary total disability (TTD) benefits for a gap period in his workers' compensation claim. The court affirmed the denial, holding that absent medical evidence of inability to work during the disputed period, a claimant cannot recover TTD benefits based solely on testimony of subjective pain without demonstrating a conscientious effort to return to work.
The court held that absent medical evidence establishing inability to work due to the compensable injury during the disputed period, a claimant cannot recover TTD benefits based solely on testimony of pain without making a conscientious effort to return to work. The exception to this rule—where allegations of continuing pain are corroborated by subsequent medical findings of deterioration—did not apply here.
[1] Temporary total disability benefits are precluded where a claimant presents no medical evidence of inability to work during the period in question and makes no conscienti…
[2] A claimant's testimony of inability to work due to pain, without more, is insufficient to establish total disability.
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“It is a longstanding policy under Florida's workers' compensation law that where a claimant presents no medical evidence that he was unable to work during the period in question due to his injuries, the claimant is precluded from an award of TTD benefits without making a conscientious effort to return to work.”
Establishes the governing legal standard for TTD benefits in Florida workers' compensation cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSeibert suffered a compensable back injury in March 1983. Dr. Hood cleared him to return to work on January 4, 1984. Seibert testified he continued su…
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 Claimant's Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
In this workers’ compensation appeal, Seibert contends the deputy commissioner erred in denying him temporary total disability (TTD) benefits for the period between 4 January 1984 and 26 September 1984. We disagree and affirm.
Seibert suffered a compensable injury to his back in March of 1983. After the accident he was treated by various physicians in South Florida until his move to Ohio, when a coordinated transfer of physicians was made. In June of 1983, Seibert came under the medical treatment of Dr. Bernard Nolan. This doctor reported that Sei-bert could be released to work on 15 September 1983.
Thereafter Seibert was seen by Dr. Henry Hood who, on 4 January 1984, concluded Seibert was fit to return to work without restrictions. During the hearing on this claim, Seibert testified that he continued to suffer from debilitating back pain following this date and in this regard contacted his employer (E/C) for authorization of further medical treatment. This was initially denied.
The E/C then authorized Dr. Warren Zienback, a specialist in neurological surgery, who rendered a report on 16 March 1984. This physician concluded, “it is nec essary for this individual to return to full-time activity.” Following this, Seibert returned to South Florida where he came under the care of Dr. Ronald Hinds. Dr. Hinds advised Seibert to attend back school and placed him on no-work status for this purpose. Upon his completion of the physical therapy course, Seibert was released to return to work on 6 November 1984.
After considering the testimony and evidence presented, the deputy commissioner found that TTD benefits should be denied Seibert from 4 January 1984, the date on which Dr. Hood advised the E/C that Sei-bert could return to work, until 26 September 1984, when Dr. Hinds initiated his no-work status.
It is a longstanding policy under Florida’s workers’ compensation law that where a claimant presents no medical evidence that he was unable to work during the period in question due to his injuries, the claimant is precluded from an award of TTD benefits without making a conscientious effort to return to work. Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Bennett, 396 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In this same respect, this court has repeatedly held that total disability cannot be established merely by a claimant’s testimony that he did not make an effort to work because he did not feel able to do so. Cardinal Industries, Inc. v. Dawkins, 392 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
The eases cited by Seibert to support his argument do not represent a recession from the above stated rule, but rather an exception; where the claimant’s allegations of continuing pain are corroborated by a finding, subsequent to the period of nonmedical treatment, of a deterioration in his condition and a physician’s statement to that effect. This is not the situation here.
While Seibert was sent to back school under the auspices of Dr. Hinds, there is no testimony present in the record regarding his physical status during the gap period. It appears that what is involved here is a different approach to medicine by one physician against three others. Therefore, inasmuch as the deputy commissioner’s decision is supported by competent substantial evidence, we affirm.
L. SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garcia-Vina v. U.S. Holiday Health & Rec. & Aetna Ins. Co., 634 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…been advised by their physicians to return to work. See, e.g., Tampa Gen. Hosp. v. Lawson, 547 So. 2d 260, 261-62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); University of Fla. v. Stone, 553 So. 2d [*201] 359, 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Seibert v. Pierce, Poole & Kent Co., 478 So. 2d 500, 500-01 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Daytona Linen Serv. v. Davis, 454 So. 2d 46, 48 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The above rule does not apply, however, if, as here, no such advice has been obtained. This court has repeatedly held that even in the absence of…
-
S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Williams, 512 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…no medical evidence that he was unable to return to work during the period in question due to his injuries, the claimant is precluded from an award of TTD without making a conscientious effort to return to work. Seibert v. Pierce, Poole & Kent Co., 478 So. 2d 500, 501 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Here, Williams concedes that she made no work search during the period of the award, but argues that it is excused because she was never personally told by a doctor that she could return. At first blush, this issue seems t…
-
T.E. James Constr. Co. & Executive Risk Consultants, Inc. v. Hartley, 616 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…warded in the absence of such evidence or an adequate job search. See e.g., University of Florida v. Stone, 553 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA1989); Tampa General Hospital v. Lawson, 547 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA1989); Seibert v. Pierce Poole and Kent Co., 478 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1st DCA1985). The temporary total disability award is reversed, and the appealed order is otherwise affirmed. JOANOS, C.J., and ZEHMER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Bennett, 396 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Cardinal Indus., Inc. v. Dawkins, 392 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)