WALT DISNEY WORLD COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
BETTY BARNUM, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1987-12-29
No. 87-302
WENTWORTH, NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
520 So. 2d 612 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1987)

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.

Synopsis

Walt Disney World appealed a workers' compensation order finding that an employee suffered a compensable accident and awarding temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that direct expert testimony on work prohibition is not required to support a TTD award when medical evidence confirms a disabling condition.


Holding

The court affirmed the award of TTD benefits, holding that direct expert testimony on work prohibition is not an indispensable predicate for excusal of work search under the statute and case law. The medical evidence confirming the herniated disc condition, combined with claimant's credible testimony regarding her inability to tolerate sustained standing or sitting, provided competent substantial evidence to support the TTD award.


Headnotes

[1] Substantial and competent evidence supports a finding that a causal relationship existed between a compensable accident and a claimant's disabling injury.

[2] An award of temporary total disability benefits is affirmed when medical reports confirm the existence of a condition adequate to support the claimant's testimony on temp…

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

Key Quotes

“we find there is CSE to support the deputy's finding that a causal relationship existed between the compensable accident and the injury alleged to be disabling”

Establishes the court's finding that competent substantial evidence supported the causal relationship between the accident and injury

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Betty Barnum suffered a compensable workplace accident resulting in a herniated disc. She testified that she was unable to tolerate sustained standing…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Walt Disney World Company appeals an order of the deputy commissioner finding that claimant suffered a compensable accident arising out of and in the scope of the course of her employment and awarding TTD benefits from the date of the accident and continuing. Regarding Disney’s first contention, we find there is CSE to support the deputy’s finding that a causal relationship existed between the compensable accident and the injury alleged to be disabling. Regarding Disney’s second point, we also affirm the award of temporary disability compensation. None of the several medical reports cast any doubt upon the credibility of claimant’s tes- timony regarding her inability to tolerate sustained standing or sitting during the months in question. Those reports confirm the existence of a condition, i.e., herniated disc, which the order, consistent with the sequence and content of the medical reports, found adequate to support claimant’s testimony on temporary disability during the months when the claim was controverted and claimant awaited, as she apparently still does, the recommended surgery.1 The decisional law debated by the parties requires affirmance since direct expert testimony on work prohibition is not, under the statute and cases, an indispensable predicate for excusal of work search. See Square G. Construction Co. v. Grace, 412 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Star Fruit v. Canady, 159 Fla. 488, 32 So. 2d 2 (1947). The period, in fact, covers one hospitalization and several weeks in which treatment was administered on a daily basis.

Affirmed.

WENTWORTH, NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur. . The failure of claimant's initial effort to see or obtain diagnosis from the neurosurgeon to whom she was referred shortly after her injury was explained by her: "I didn't get to see Dr. Mozingo because he charged sixty dollars and I didn’t have no income coming in."


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw