WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. AND CRAWFORD & COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ELIZABETH DAVIS, 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 commissioner's findings were insufficient to support an award of temporary total disability benefits beyond a certain date, as they were inconsistent with the uncontradicted medical evidence regarding maximum medical improvement.
The employer and carrier appealed an award of temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. The treating physician testified the claimant reached maximum…
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 Impairment cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
The employer/carrier appeal a compensation order awarding TTD benefits from January 14, 1986 and continuing until such time as the appellee, the claimant, reaches maximum medical improvement. We find no basis upon which to question the award of such benefits up tó May 16, 1986.
Dr. Johnson, the treating physician, testified on deposition that the claimant reached MMI as of May 16, 1986 with a 25 percent permanent impairment of the body as a whole. He did not expect her condition to improve. In awarding temporary benefits, the deputy rejected the testimony as to MMI as inconsistent with Dr. Johnson’s contemporaneous office notes which indicated the claimant’s condition was unchanged and that she was unable to work. However, since the only medical evidence suggests the claimant suffers a permanent impairment which will not improve, it appears MMI has been reached and that the claimant should be receiving permanent, and not temporary, benefits.
The deputy’s findings seem to be inconsistent with the uncontradicted medical evidence. They require further explanation by the deputy as to why he rejected the opinion that MMI had been reached. As presently constituted, the findings are insufficient to afford meaningful appellate review. Therefore, the case is AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED to the deputy for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BOOTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zimmerman v. Cade Enters., Inc., 34 So. 3d 199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…aking evidence. Mr. Zimmerman devotes much of his initial brief to arguing the merits of his claim to the dividends. However, his arguments are premature. Inter-pleader is a two-stage action. See, e.g., N & C Properties v. Vanguard Bank & Trust Co., 519 So. 2d 1048, 1050-51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Drummond Title Co. v. Weinroth, 77 So. 2d 606, 609 (Fla.1955). At the first stage of interpleader, the court determines only whether interpleader is appropriate, and at the second stage the court determines the merits o…
-
State v. Glasser, 622 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…ecessary nor indispensable party. A proper party is one who has an interest in the subject matter of the action, but whose absence will not prevent a judgment determining the issues between the parties. N & C Properties v. Vanguard Bank & Trust Co., 519 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 529 So. 2d 694 (Fla.1988). The school board was alleging that section 236.25(1) and item 509 were facially unconstitutional, not unconstitutional as applied. Thus, it was not necessary for the trial court to consider D…
-
Davis v. Gulf Power Corp., 799 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…ant to this chapter may be rendered by way of anticipation with respect to any act not yet done or any event which has not yet happened"). The Board, although a proper party, is not indispensable. See N & C Properties v. Vanguard Bank and Trust Co., 519 So. 2d 1048, 1052 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)(a proper party has an interest in the subject matter but the party’s absence will not prevent a judgment determining substantial issues between the parties). . The parties agree that there axe no disputed issues of fact in…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence