CHERYL BAHR, APPELLANT,
v.
HOWARD JOHNSON # 24609 AND AMERICAN MUTUAL 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.
Cheryl Bahr appeals a workers' compensation order denying her claim for a back injury allegedly sustained while removing a refrigerator drawer at her workplace. The Florida appellate court affirmed the denial, finding insufficient competent evidence to support an industrial accident and rejecting her invocation of the logical cause doctrine.
The deputy commissioner's denial was supported by competent substantial evidence, and the logical cause doctrine does not apply because Bahr failed to prove the cause of her back problems. The appellate court will not reverse the deputy commissioner's credibility findings.
[1] A workers' compensation claimant must provide competent substantial evidence to support a claim of an on-the-job injury.
[2] A claimant's failure to report an injury at the time of occurrence and continued work thereafter may undermine the claim's compensability.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“This testimony does not provide the necessary competent evidence to support Bahr's claim of an industrial accident.”
Establishes that the witness testimony was insufficient to meet the evidentiary burden for a workers' compensation claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBahr worked as a waitress at Howard Johnson's and claimed she injured her back while removing a large metal drawer from a refrigerator. She did not re…
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 Logical Cause Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Bahr appeals from a workers’ compensation order denying the compensability of her claim. She contends the deputy commissioner’s order is not supported by competent substantial evidence. We disagree and affirm.
Bahr claims she injured her back when she removed a large metal drawer from a refrigerator while working as a waitress for the employer herein, Howard Johnsons. However, she did not report the injury to her superiors at that time and continued to work for several days thereafter. Further, when Bahr was admitted to a hospital complaining of pain down her right flank, according to the physicians who treated her, she did not relate the refrigerator cleaning incident to them.
Moreover, the testimony of Bahr’s witnesses contained in the record do not fully support her claim of an on-the-job injury. A fellow waitress stated that Bahr merely related that she was hot, sweaty and that her back hurt, without giving a specific reason foi; her discomfort. As for the testimony of the patient who shared a hospital room with Bahr, she recounted that Bahr told one of her physicians that at the time she lifted the refrigerator drawer she did not experience any problem, but to the best of her knowledge that was the only activity she had done that could have caused an injury.
This testimony does not provide the necessary competent evidence to support Bahr’s claim of an industrial accident. Additionally, Bahr’s argument that the “logical cause doctrine” controls this case is erroneous. The “logical cause doctrine,” as set out in Jim Rathman Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc. v. Barnard, 200 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1967), holds that when a serious injury is shown and a logical cause for it is proven, the party who seeks to defeat recovery thereon has the burden of overcoming the established proof and showing that another cause of injury is more logical. As stated above, Bahr has not satisfied the first step of this doctrine, namely: she has not proven the cause of her back problems.
In Barnett v. Lakeland Construction Co., 417 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), a case with facts similar to those in this instance, the court held that the deputy commissioner did not err in refusing to apply the “logical cause doctrine” when the deputy commissioner had the direct opportunity to observe the behavior and demean-or of the claimant and his witnesses, even though the employer presented no evidence to refute the claimant’s assertions. Likewise, in the present case, in order for this court to reverse the findings of fact of the deputy commissioner, we would have to reverse her findings on the issue of credibility. This we refuse to do as it is clearly improper. John Caves Land Development Co. v. Suggs, 352 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1977).
Accordingly, we affirm the order on appeal.
BOOTH, C.J., concurs.
WENTWORTH, J., agrees to conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Manley v. Bennett's Truck Equip. & Claims Mgmt. Sys., 506 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…st prevail on the issue of compensability. Generally, a dc can reject a claimant’s evidence regarding causation and choose not to apply the logical cause doctrine where the dc finds the claimant lacks credibility. See Bahr v. Howard Johnson #24609, 498 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Barnett v. Lakeland Construction Co., 417 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In the instant case the dc concluded that the claimant was not credible. We cannot agree on the record before us. We find that in the absence of any subst…
-
D'Amico v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. & Gates, 527 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…Dynamic Builders, Inc., 500 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); McNew v. Southern Intermodal Logistics, 380 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). As did the employer/carrier in Manley, the employer/carrier in the instant case cite to Bahr v. Howard Johnson, 498 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), for the proposition that the deputy was entitled to reject claimant’s evidence regarding causation and choose not to apply the logical cause doctrine where he found claimant lacked credibility. Specifically, the employer/carrier…
-
Lottie Alston v. Etcetera Janitorial Servs. & Wausau Ins. Co., 634 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…Comm’n, 86 So. 2d 147 (Fla.1955); Deahl. Likewise, the doctrine does not apply when the judge rejects the claimant’s testimony as lacking in credibility, so as to conclude that a logical industrial cause has not been proved. Bahr v. Howard Johnson, 498 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Barnett v. Lakeland Constr., 417 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In the present ease the claimant’s testimony might arguably permit application of the logical cause doctrine. But the claimant’s testimony was at times internall…
Authorities Cited
- John Caves Land Dev. Co. v. Suggs, 352 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1977)
- Barnett v. Lakeland Constr. Co. & United States Fid. & Guar., 417 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- JIM Rathmann Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc. v. Jacquelyn Barnard & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 200 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1967)