BODY WORKS, INC. AND CLAIMS CENTER, APPELLANTS,
v.
LUIS CHAVEZ, 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 employer is not liable for medical treatment related to the claimant's hearing loss due to a lack of proven causal connection, but is liable for other awarded benefits.
The employer appealed a workers' compensation order awarding medical treatment for hearing loss and cardiac problems, and attendant care benefits. Com…
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 Hypothetical Questions cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
The employer appeals a workers’ compensation order, challenging the award of medical treatment for hearing loss and cardiac problems, and the award of attendant care benefits to the claimant's wife. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Competent, substantial evidence supports the award of medical treatment for the cardiac problems and the award of benefits for attendant care. However, the claimant did not meet his burden of showing a causal connection between his hearing loss and the compensable accident.
Dr. Mora testified in deposition that he found a serious auditory loss on the left side and, in response to a hypothetical question, that there could be a causal connection between the accident and the loss of hearing, assuming the claimant had not previously had a hearing problem. Counsel for the employer properly objected to the hypothetical question on the grounds that the assumption of no previous hearing problem was not supported by facts in evidence. No evidence of any kind was presented thereafter regarding the claimant’s hearing prior to the accident.
We REVERSE the part of the order requiring the employer to pay Dr. Mora’s bills to the extent that they relate to the claimant’s hearing loss, and AFFIRM the remainder of the order. ERVIN and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stacy v. Venice Isles Mobile Home Park, 635 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…l question is improper if any of the basic facts contained in the question are not supported by competent evidence in the record. Monsalvatge■ & Co. of Miami v. Ryder Leasing, Inc., 151 So. 2d 453, 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Body Works, Inc. v. Chavez, 606 So. 2d 1273, 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). See also Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 704.2 at 526 (1993 ed.). As the Florida Supreme Court recognized in Geiger Distributors, Inc. v. Snow, 186 So. 2d 507, 509 (Fla.1966), a medical expert’s opinion testimony m…