CONCETTA BAIO SEVERINI, APPELLANT,
v.
PAN AMERICAN BEAUTY SCHOOL, INC. 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.
Concetta Baio Severini appealed the denial of her workers' compensation claim for temporary total disability and medical benefits after March 1988. The workers' compensation judge denied benefits on the ground that her post-March 1988 injuries were caused by an independent, non-work-related accident in February 1988 rather than her December 1987 compensable work accident. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, finding insufficient competent, substantial evidence to support the judge's finding that her herniated disc was unrelated to the December 1987 work accident.
The appellate court reversed the denial of benefits because the judge's finding lacked competent, substantial evidence. Dr. Lazar's unrefuted testimony established that the claimant's herniated disc was related to the December 1987 compensable accident, and the judge failed to provide reasonable explanation for rejecting this testimony. The claimant thereby carried her burden of establishing a logical cause for her injury.
[1] An appellate court is in an equal position to judge the credibility and probative value of transcribed testimony as the lower tribunal when reviewing findings of fact bas…
[2] A judge of compensation claims may not reject unrefuted medical testimony of a party's expert witness without a reasonable explanation for doing so.
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“the judge may not reject unrefuted medical testimony of a party's expert witness without a reasonable explanation for doing so”
Establishes the legal standard for how judges must treat uncontradicted expert medical testimony in workers' compensation cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSeverini suffered a compensable work accident in December 1987. In February 1988, she experienced an independent accident. The workers' compensation j…
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 Causation In Workers' Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
ZEHMER, Judge.
Concetto Baio Severini appeals a final order denying her workers’ compensation claim for temporary total disability benefits and medical care after March 1988. Benefits were denied on the ground that her injuries and disabilities after that date were not related to the December 1987 compensable accident, but rather were solely attributable to an independent, intervening accident that occurred during February 1988 and was not work related. Finding the record lacking in.competent, substantial evidence to support the findings of the judge below, we reverse.
All of the medical testimony in this case was presented by deposition. In reviewing findings of fact based on a transcript of testimony rather than witnesses testifying live before the lower tribunal, this appellate court is in an equal position to judge both the credibility and probative value of such transcribed testimony. McCabe v. Bechtel Power Corp., 510 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Metropolitan Transit Authority v. Bradshaw, 478 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Poorman v. Muncy & Bartle Painting, 483 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Kelly v. Florida Atlantic University, 413 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Dukes v. Dukes, 346 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. dismissed, 351 So. 2d 1021 (Fla.1977).
Our review of the testimony reveals a lack of the requisite competent, substantial evidence to support the finding in the appealed order that claimant’s herniated disc was not causally related to the December 1987 compensable accident. Contrary to the stated basis for the finding on this issue, Dr. Reitman did not give any opinion with regard to whether claimant’s medical problems after March 1988 were related to the December 1987 accident. The only doctor who did render an opinion on this issue, Dr. Lazar, testified that claimant’s herniated disc was related to the December 1987 accident. While a judge of compensation claims has the discretion to accept the opinion of one physician over that of another, Patterson v. Wellcraft Marine, 509 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), the judge may not reject unre-futed medical testimony of a party’s expert witness without a reasonable explanation for doing so. Bray v. Electronic Door-Lift, Inc., 558 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Philpot v. City of Miami, 541 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
Because Dr. Lazar’s testimony regarding causation is unrefuted and the judge below did not give a reasonable explanation for rejecting it, claimant carried her burden of establishing a logical cause for her injury and condition. The employer did not show a more logical cause by competent, substantial evidence. See Bray v. Electronic Door-Lift, Inc., 558 So. 2d at 46.
The order must, therefore, be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SHIVERS, C.J., and JOANOS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ullman v. City OF Tampa Parks Dep't & Alexsis, 625 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…to causation without a reasonable explanation for doing so, and cites Philpot v. City of Miami, 541 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Bray v. Electronic Door-Lift, Inc., 558 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Severini v. Pan American Beauty School, Inc., 557 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); and Lindsay v. TVS Trucking Co., 565 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). We must determine, [*871] then, whether the JCC failed to heed valid rules of law set out in these cases. In Philpot, the court’s recitation of the facts indi…
-
H & A Frank's Constr., Inc. v. Mendoza, 582 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…n Boots v. Green, 578 So. 2d 439, 441 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Hidden Harbor Boatworks v. Williams, 566 So. 2d 595, 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Thomas v. Salvation Army, 562 So. 2d 746, 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Severini v. Pan American Beauty School, Inc., 557 So. 2d 896, 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); McCabe v. Bechtel Power Corp., 510 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Metropolitan Transit Authority v. Bradshaw, 478 So. 2d 115, 116-117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The JCC did not indicate nor can we glean from the record in what…
-
Borges v. Osceola Farms Co. & Nat'l Emp'rs Co., 651 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…at of the vocational experts. Consequently, this court’s vantage point is not inferior to that of the JCC in considering such evidence. Metropolitan Dade County v. Pope, 615 So. 2d 856, 857 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Severini v. Pan Am. Beauty Sch., Inc., 557 So. 2d 896, 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Haga v. Clay Ryder Trucking Lines, 397 So. 2d 428, 431 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 402 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1981). The law is clear that in passing on the sufficiency of a work search, the JCC must decide whether claimant’s…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Poorman v. Muncy & Bartle Painting & Reliance Ins. Co., 433 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Clar v. The Cont'l Ins. Cos. & The Glens Falls Ins. Co., 510 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Philpot v. City OF Miami, 541 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Bray v. Elec. Door-Lift, Inc., 558 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Patterson v. Wellcraft Marine, 509 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Flavous Green v. State, 478 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Dukes v. Allie N. Dukes, 346 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Kelly v. Fla. Atl. Univ. & Div. of Risk Mgmt., 413 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Allie N. Dukes v. Dukes, 351 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1977)