TELEFLEX, INC. AND WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANIES, APPELLANTS,
v.
VADA ARNDTS, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the deputy's finding that a claimant's injury was causally related to a 1982 workplace accident, holding that lay testimony alone cannot establish causation for non-observable medical conditions and remanding for reconsideration of whether the injury was instead caused by an earlier 1979 accident.
The court reversed the deputy's finding of causation related to the 1982 accident, holding that lay testimony is legally insufficient to establish causation for non-observable medical conditions. The court remanded for the deputy to reconsider whether causation existed between the injury and the 1979 accident instead, as the medical evidence supported that connection.
[1] Lay testimony is legally insufficient to support a finding of causation where the medical condition involved is not readily observable.
[2] Medical evidence is required to support a finding of causation for injuries that are not readily observable.
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“[L]ay testimony is legally insufficient to support a finding of causation where the medical condition involved is not readily observable.”
Establishes the legal standard that lay testimony cannot establish causation for non-observable medical conditions; citations to Vero Beach Care Center v. Ricks.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant, a 55-year-old female with an eighth-grade education, suffered a back injury in a work-related accident on September 20, 1979 while lifting a…
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 Compensable Accident cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from a workers’ compensation order finding claimant suffered a compensable accident in the course and scope of her employment in February of 1982, awarding temporary total disability (TTD) benefits from December 7, 1984 to December 31, 1985, and awarding medical care.
We reverse the deputy’s determination that the 1982 accident was the cause of claimant’s injury and remand to the deputy to reconsider the question regarding the cause of claimant’s injury. Accordingly, the question of whether there is competent and substantial evidence to support the award of TTD benefits is moot.1
Claimant, a 55-year-old female with an eighth grade education, injured her back in a work-related accident on September 20, 1979 while lifting a 47-pound box. In February of 1982, claimant testified the “same thing” happened when she lifted a stack of wooden trays at the employer’s place of business.
Dr. Kauffman testified in part that claimant’s sequence of pain and progressive physical deterioration over the past few years started from the 1979 industrial accident and was therefore related as to cause and effect. Dr. Miller, an orthopedic surgeon, opined that claimant had a congenital back problem with degenerative arthritis that was made clinically evident by the 1979 injury. However, Dr. Padar, an orthopedic surgeon, opined that claimant's present condition was caused by a natural degeneration of the disc and not by an injury.
In Vero Beach Care Center v. Ricks, 476 So .2d 262, 264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), this court recognized the rule which requires medical evidence to support a finding of causation and stated: “[L]ay testimony is legally insufficient to support a finding of causation where the medical condition involved is not readily observable.”
Here, claimant’s back injury was not readily observable and thus was not susceptible to evaluation by lay persons.
A review of the record reflects that the medical evidence does not support the conclusion that claimant’s current medical problems are causally related to the 1982 incident; however the medical evidence would support a finding that claimant’s condition is related to the 1979 accident. Both Drs. Miller and Kauffman opined that claimant’s condition was related to the 1979 accident.
Accordingly, we remand for the deputy to reconsider the question of causation in view of the foregoing and award claimant medical treatment and average weekly wage as would be appropriate.
BOOTH, C.J., and MILLS, J., concur. WENTWORTH, J., dissents with written opinion.
. However, we note after reviewing the record, that if a causal connection had been established there was competent and substantial evidence to support the award of temporary total disability benefits.
WENTWORTH, Judge.
I would affirm because I think there was evidence before the deputy, expert and otherwise, sufficient to sustain his conclusion that the later accident contributed causally to the temporary disability claim, even assuming (without deciding) that a contrary conclusion may be dictated as to permanent disability.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Closet Maid & Crawford & Co. v. Sykes, 763 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…d a degenerative disc disease [*389] in the past and has documented prior problems [with her back].” Back injuries, as soft tissue injuries which are not readily observable, require medical evidence to establish causation. Teleflex, Inc. v. Arndts, 499 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The claimant’s lay testimony about the major contributing cause of her back condition is not competent evidence taken alone. In short, we conclude that the JCC's finding of major contributing cause is not supported by competent,…
-
Orange Cnty. MIS Dep't & Johns E. Co., Inc. v. HAK, 710 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…has had a degenerative disc disease in the past and has documented prior problems [with her back].” Back injuries, as soft tissue injuries which are not readily observable, require medical evidence to establish causation. Teleflex, Inc. v. Arndts, 499 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The claimant’s lay testimony about the major contributing cause of her back condition is not competent evidence taken alone. In short, we conclude that the JCC’s finding of major contributing cause is not supported by competent,…
-
Arand Constr. Co. v. Duford Dyer, 592 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…The Law of Workmen’s Compensation, § 12.25 (emphasis added); see Haas v. Seekell, supra, (quoting Larson). Claimant’s condition in the case at bar cannot be considered a “commoner affliction” that is readily observable. See Teleflex, Inc. v. Arndts, 499 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (a claimant’s back condition was not readily observable where a series of accidents combined with a degenerative arthritic condition); Vero Beach Care Center v. Ricks, 476 So. 2d 262, 264 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (“[sjoft tissue…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Vero Beach Care Ctr. & Associated Indus. of Fla. v. Ricks, 476 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)