GARY MICHAEL, APPELLANT,
v.
NATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., 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.
Gary Michael appeals a workers' compensation order denying his claim for temporary disability benefits following a January 1989 knee injury that aggravated his preexisting arthritis. The appellate court reversed the judge's findings regarding maximum medical improvement, causation, and wage loss benefits, finding insufficient evidentiary support for the lower court's conclusions.
The court reversed all three findings. First, the court found no stipulation supporting the MMI determination and no evidentiary support for the April 9, 1990 date. Second, the court found competent medical testimony established the January 1989 accident aggravated claimant's arthritic condition. Third, the court reversed the wage loss benefits denial because the employer and carrier failed to advise claimant of his obligation to make work searches and submit wage loss forms.
[1] A finding of maximum medical improvement (MMI) is reversible error when the record lacks a stipulation of the parties and the evidence does not support the finding.
[2] A workers' compensation order is reversible error when it rejects competent, substantial medical testimony relating a claimant's condition to an accident without reasonab…
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“Although the appealed order recites that this finding was based on the stipulation of [*244] the parties, the record fails to contain any such stipulation, and Appellees, Employer and Carrier, so concede.”
Establishes that the lower court's MMI finding lacked an evidentiary foundation in the record.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 17, 1989, claimant Gary Michael twisted his knee, aggravating a preexisting arthritic condition. The Judge of Compensation Claims found tha…
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 Temporary Disability Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Claimant, Gary Michael, appeals a workers’ compensation order denying his claim for temporary disability or wage loss benefits, alternative medical care, penalties, and interest, arising out of an accident on January 17, 1989, in which he twisted his knee and aggravated a preexisting arthritic condition. He raises three points for reversal.
Claimant’s first point contends that the Judge of Compensation Claims erred in ruling that he had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) as of April 9, 1990. Although the appealed order recites that this finding was based on the stipulation of the parties, the record fails to contain any such stipulation, and Appellees, Employer and Carrier, so concede. Appellees nevertheless argue that the evidence supports a finding of MMI as of that date. Our review of the record fails to support that contention. Accordingly, this finding of the order is reversed.
Claimant’s second point contends that the record lacks competent, substantial evidence to support the judge’s findings that Claimant’s medical symptoms and physical limitations related to the condition of his knee are not the result of the January 1989 accident but are related solely to Claimant’s preexisting arthritic condition. After careful review of the record, we agree with this contention. Dr. Brill’s deposition testimony, taken as a whole, confirms Claimant’s twisting accident as an aggravating cause of his condition when examined by Dr. Brill, although Dr. Brill was unable to express an unqualified opinion that this aggravation was the continuing cause of Claimant’s complaints some two months later. Dr. Lane’s deposition testimony unqualifiedly relates Claimant’s knee condition in January and April 1990 to the aggravation of the arthritic condition by the twisting accident in 1989. The order does not contain any reasonable explanation for rejecting this medical testimony. Accordingly, we reverse this finding. Severini v. Pan American Beauty School, Inc., 557 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
Claimant’s third point contends that the order erred in denying temporary partial disability or wage loss benefits on the ground that Claimant failed to make a good faith work search. Appellees’ argument that this claim was properly rejected because Claimant was not suffering any ill effects from the January 1989 injury during the period after October 1989 covered by his claim is not supported by the record. We reverse this finding in the order because the record establishes without contr-oversion that the employer and carrier failed to advise Claimant of his obligation to make the work searches and submit the wage loss forms to the carrier. Alberta v. American Freight Systems, 565 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
SMITH, ZEHMER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scott v. Bisanti Servs., Inc., 634 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…search. A claimant is excused from her obligation to perform a work search where the employer/carrier fails to advise the claimant of her obligation to perform a work search and to submit wage loss forms to the carrier. Michael v. Nat'l Indus. Inc., 599 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Cozzens v. St. Joe Container Co., 596 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The JCC’s denial of indemnity benefits is thus reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Upon remand, claimant’s entitlement to indemnity benefits is con…
-
Clark v. Duck KEY Marina, 602 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…ers’ compensation order by which a claim for various benefits was denied. Among other contentions, the claimant asserts that he should be excused from a job search obligation under the authority of cases such as Michael v. National Industries, Inc., 599 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). In Michael the record established without controversion that the employer/carrier had failed to provide the claimant with job search information. There is no such evidence in the present case, and the employer/carrier’s failure…
Authorities Cited
- Concetta Baio Severini v. PAN Am. Beauty Sch., Inc., 557 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Alberta v. Am. Freight Sys., 565 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)