COPELAND STEEL AND CNA INSURANCE CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
WALTER MILES, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1989-01-06
No. 88-629
BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
536 So. 2d 1179 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1989) Negative Treatment
Cited by 14 cases

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

In a workers' compensation case, the employer/carrier appealed an award of permanent wage-loss benefits and psychiatric treatment. The court affirmed the award of remedial psychiatric treatment and costs but reversed the award of permanent wage-loss benefits because the claimant had not yet reached maximum medical improvement from his psychiatric injuries.


Holding

The court reversed the award of permanent wage-loss benefits because the claimant had not reached maximum medical improvement from his psychiatric injuries. However, the court affirmed the award of remedial psychiatric treatment because it is permissible where the claimant has not yet reached psychiatric maximum medical improvement. The court also affirmed the award of costs because the claimant prevailed on the issue of medical benefits.


Headnotes

[1] Permanent wage-loss benefits may not be awarded prior to a claimant reaching maximum medical improvement (MMI) from all compensable injuries, including psychiatric and or…

[2] An award of remedial psychiatric treatment is permissible when a claimant has not yet reached MMI from psychiatric injuries.

Previewing 2 of 3 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

“Where a claimant has both psychiatric and orthopedic injuries, permanent benefits may not be awarded prior to the claimant reaching MMI from both disorders.”

Establishes the controlling legal principle that permanent wage-loss benefits require maximum medical improvement from all injuries, not just some.

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

Claimant suffered compensable orthopedic and psychiatric injuries on June 9, 1982. The employer/carrier paid temporary total benefits through June 22,…

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
SHIVERS, Judge.

SHIVERS, Judge.

The employer/carrier (E/C) in this workers’ compensation case appeal an order entered by the deputy commissioner (DC) awarding the claimant permanent wage-loss benefits, remedial medical treatment, and costs, and reserving jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees. We affirm in part, reverse, and remand.

The claimant in this case was injured in a compensable accident on June 9, 1982, resulting in both orthopedic and psychiatric injuries. The E/C paid temporary total benefits following the accident through June 22, 1983 (the date determined by the E/C to be the date of orthopedic maximum medical improvement) and wage-loss benefits from June 23, 1983 through June 30, 1984. In 1985, the DC denied a claim for wage-loss benefits and chiropractic treatment, and reaffirmed June 22, 1983 as the date of MMI. In June, July and August of 1987, claimant was treated on four occasions by a psychiatrist, Dr. Gutman. Claimant subsequently filed a claim seeking wage-loss benefits from October 1, 1985 through October 30, 1987, payment of Dr. Gutman’s bills, and future treatment by Gutman.

At the December 1987 hearing on this claim, Dr. Gutman testified by deposition that the claimant had sustained psychiatric injuries as a result of his industrial accident and would have a permanent psychiatric impairment, but that he had not yet reached MMI from those injuries. In his February 1988 order following the hearing, the DC noted Dr. Gutman’s testimony regarding psychiatric MMI, and stated “I find no valid reason to change his status from wage-loss to being temporarily totally or temporarily partially disabled unless there is a change in his medical condition.” The DC awarded wage-loss benefits for the claimed period, and directed the E/C to pay Dr. Gutman’s past bills and to provide future psychiatric treatment by Gutman. The E/C raise three issues on appeal: (1) whether the DC erred in awarding wage-loss benefits where the evidence failed to establish that the claimant conducted an adequate job search for the period from October 1, 1985 through October 30, 1987; (2) whether the DC erred in awarding remedial treatment by Dr. Gutman; and (3) whether the DC erred in awarding costs.

First, it is clear from the statement quoted from the February 1988 order (above) that the wage loss benefits awarded by the DC were permanent in nature, as opposed to temporary. The DC specifically stated that he found no reason to change claimant’s status to either temporary total or temporary partial disability. Since the evidence indicates without contradiction that the claimant has not yet reached MMI from a psychiatric standpoint, however, we must reverse the award of wage loss benefits. Where a claimant has both psychiatric and orthopedic injuries, permanent benefits may not be awarded prior to the claimant reaching MMI from both disorders. Fuchs Baking Co. v. Estate of Szlosek, 466 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Second, although it would have been improper for the DC to award remedial ortho--pedic treatment, the award of remedial psychiatric treatment was not erroneous since the claimant has not yet reached psychiatric MMI. Last, since claimant has prevailed on the issue of medical benefits, the DC’s award of costs is affirmed.

ACCORDINGLY, WE AFFIRM IN PART, REVERSE, AND REMAND.

BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Daws Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Ostoyic, 756 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
    …yic’s physical condition, given the’1 well-established law that, when a claimant has both psychiatric and physical injuries, MMI must be reached as to both before permanent benefits may be awarded. Indeed, this court held in Copeland Steel v. Miles, 536 So. 2d 1179, 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), that, where a claimant has both psychiatric and orthopedic injuries, permanent benefits may not be awarded prior to the claimant reaching MMI from both disorders. Where a psychiatric injury plays no part in a finding of a…
  • …ion and the accident, and there was no evidence that Caldwell had reached psychiatric MMI at the time of the hearing. An employee who has not reached psychiatric MMI is entitled to an award of remedial psychiatric treatment, Copeland Steel v. Miles, 536 So. 2d 1179, 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), and Caldwell’s need for such treatment was uncontradict-ed. The denial of remedial psychiatric care is therefore reversed. [*314] Finally, Caldwell alleges that the judge erred in denying her claim for temporary total disa…
  • Upthegrove v. Doctor's Hosp., 586 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
    …from her physical injuries. This affirmance is without prejudice to the issue of overall MMI being revisited should the subsequent psychiatric evaluation ordered lead to a diagnosis of a work related psychiatric injury. See Copeland Steel v. Miles, 536 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Orlando Concrete Contractors v. Hinds, 466 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). AFFIRMED. SHIVERS and WOLF, JJ., and CAWTHON, Senior Judge, concur.…

Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw