ERNIE HAIRE FORD, INC., & FLORIDA AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOC. & LYNN UNDERWRITING COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT L. HAMILTON, 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 court held that the deputy's award of permanent total disability benefits was supported by competent and substantial evidence, and the rejection of Dr. Schroeder's testimony was not error.
Claimant sought permanent total disability benefits, presenting testimony from himself, Dr. Murphy, and a rehabilitation nurse. The employer/carrier (…
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 Sheltered Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
We affirm the deputy’s award of permanent total disability benefits and find no error in the deputy’s rejection of Dr. Rupert Schroeder’s testimony.
The evidence is competent and substantial to support the deputy’s finding that claimant is permanently and totally disabled. Claimant’s testimony, in conjunction with that of Dr. Murphy and the rehabilitation nurse, establishes that claimant is unable to do even light work uninterruptedly, and that his possible return to work is speculative and could only be in sheltered employment. Drummond v. Plumbing Corporation of America, 428 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Butler’s Dairy v. Honeycutt, 452 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Although claimant’s testing of the job market was minimal, considering his age, severe physical limitations, and his industrial history, his efforts at Ernie Haire Ford following the surgery and his “work” at the mini-warehouse amounted to a search sufficiently comporting with his abilities and restrictions. Drummond, 428 So. 2d at 743. The E/C failed to show suitable work was available.
Regarding the deputy’s rejection of Dr. Schroeder’s testimony, we recognize the rule that failure to state reasons for accepting one doctor’s opinion over others is reversible error where the reason for the finding is not apparent from the record, or where it appears the deputy has overlooked or ignored evidence in the record. Allied Parcel Delivery v. Dixon, 466 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). However, here the reference in the order to the fact that Dr. Schroeder examined claimant only once, and for reasons other than compensation, indicates his testimony was neither overlooked nor ignored by the deputy.
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, J„ and McCORD, GUYTE P., Jr. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shaw v. Publix Supermarkets, 609 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…h is not a prerequisite for obtaining PTD benefits if a claimant demonstrates inability to engage in gainful employment due to physical limitations. See Carter v. City of Venice, 584 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA1991); Ernie Haire Ford, Inc. v. Hamilton, 483 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA1986); Thompkins & Sons Lawn Spray v. Brooks, 452 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA1984). Dr. Lane, an orthopedic surgeon, treated Claimant from the day of injury. In his February 16, 1990, report, Dr. Lane noted Publix was very anxious to get…
-
Dental Arts LAB, Inc. v. Constantino, 531 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…ecause he felt he could not place her. Appellee testified that she was in constant pain and unable to drive. These facts were sufficient to establish that ap-pellee was unable to do light work uninterruptedly. See Ernie Haire Ford, Inc. v. Hamilton, 483 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The record establishes that appellee was unable to resume her delivery position after returning to the employer because she was unable to drive. The employer placed her in a clerical position for which she was untrained, and sta…
Authorities Cited
- Allied Parcel Delivery & CNA Ins. Co. v. Dixon, 466 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Chirillo v. State, 428 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Drummond v. Plumbing Corp. OF Am. & R.P. Hewitt & Assocs., 428 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Butler's Dairy & Whiting Nat'l Servs., Inc. v. Honeycutt, 452 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)