JOSEPH COLLAZO, APPELLANT,
v.
SOURINI PAINTING COMPANY AND TRAVELERS 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.
A worker appealed a workers' compensation order denying permanent total disability and wage-loss benefits after suffering an eleven-foot fall from a ladder. The appellate court reversed because the record lacked competent, substantial evidence supporting the finding of no permanent physical impairment.
The court held that the record did not contain competent, substantial evidence to support the finding of no permanent physical impairment. Dr. Gilbert's testimony supported only a finding of the presence of some permanent impairment, and Dr. Wassel's report did not contain an expressed opinion that no permanent impairment existed.
[1] A workers' compensation order denying permanent total disability and wage-loss benefits must be reversed if the record lacks competent, substantial evidence to support a…
[2] A claimant's fall may aggravate preexisting conditions, and such aggravation can result in permanent impairment for workers' compensation purposes.
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“The issue presented to the deputy commissioner is whether claimant's eleven-foot fall from a ladder to the ground aggravated claimant's preexisting conditions and whether such aggravation has resulted in any permanent impairment.”
Statement of the central legal issue being reviewed on appeal regarding permanent impairment from the workplace injury.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant Joseph Collazo fell eleven feet from a ladder to the ground, which allegedly aggravated his preexisting conditions. The deputy commissioner f…
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 Permanent Physical Impairment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the appealed workers' compensation order denying claimant permanent total disability and wage-loss benefits because the record does not contain competent, substantial evidence to support the finding of no permanent physical impair ment. The issue presented to the deputy commissioner is whether claimant’s eleven-foot fall from a ladder to the ground aggravated claimant’s preexisting conditions and whether such aggravation has resulted in any permanent impairment. We would be neglectful if we did not point out that the manner in which claimant’s counsel tried this case, and the formulation of questions during Dr. Gilbert’s deposition concerning permanent impairment, leaves much to be desired. Nevertheless, contrary to the finding in the order, Dr. Gilbert’s testimony supports only a finding of the presence of some permanent impairment, rather than a finding of the complete absence of any permanent impairment. The only other evidence that claimant had no permanent impairment referred to by the deputy commissioner is the medical report of Dr. Wassel. But neither that report nor the cover letter accompanying it, dated February 28, 1986, contains an expressed opinion that no permanent impairment exists as a result of the aggravation of preexisting conditions.
Failing to find any competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the deputy commissioner’s determination to dismiss claimant’s claim with prejudice for lack of evidence of permanent impairment, we are compelled to reverse and remand for further proceedings, including the taking of additional evidence if deemed necessary by the deputy commissioner to resolve the remaining issues.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WENTWORTH, NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carson v. Gaineswood Condos., 532 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…026 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Conversely, if the record demonstrates an absence of competent substantial evidence to support the deputy’s determination, the order will be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Collazo v. Sourini Painting Company, 516 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Furthermore, while it is the deputy’s prerogative to determine the credibility of witnesses, Grillo v. Big “B” Ranch, 328 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1976), the deputy is not required to accept the testimony of a witness merely because tha…
-
Rodriguez v. Albertson's & Risk Administrators, Inc., 614 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…e and remand with directions that the judge of compensation claims address and decide the remaining disputed issues applicable to the claim for wage-loss benefits for the period from May 1, 1989, to May 19, 1990. See Collazo v. Sourini Painting Co., 516 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions. ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.…
-
Kessler v. Cmty. Blood Bank & Mich. Millers, 621 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…does the intermingling of the terms constitute mere harmless error. Because the record fails to support the JCG’s determination on the impairment issue, we are compelled to reverse and remand for further proceedings. Collazo v. Sourini Painting Co., 516 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Second, Claimant challenges the JCC’s resolution of the conflicting medical evidence. Undisputedly, the JCC has the discretion to assess credibility; resolve conflicts in the evidence, and accept the testimony of one doctor ove…