CECIL E. CREWS, APPELLANT,
v.
HUSSMAN REFRIGERATION AND CRAWFORD & 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.
The court held that the judge of compensation claims erred in vacating an earlier order awarding permanent total disability benefits based solely on the date of psychological maximum medical improvement.
The claimant was awarded permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. The employer/carrier sought rehearing, arguing the claimant had not reached maximu…
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 Claim For Permanent Total Disability Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation appeal, appellant Cecil E. Crews challenges the October 15, 1991, order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC) establishing a maximum medical improvement (MMI) date of July 3, 1991, and ordering payment of permanent total disability (PTD) benefits to commence on July 3, 1991. For the following reason, we vacate the order of October 15, 1991, and remand with directions.
After hearing on the claim for PTD benefits, the JCC issued an order dated September 4, 1991, finding claimant permanently totally disabled and ordering payment of PTD benefits commencing October 2, 1989. On motion for rehearing, the employer/carrier argued that claimant had not reached MMI “from all perspectives” (meaning psychological as well as orthopedic MMI) until at least July 3, 1991, basing their argument on the testimony of Dr.. John McKay, claimant’s rehabilitation psychologist. The JCC granted rehearing and adopted the e/c’s position, issuing the October 15, 1991, order awarding PTD benefits commencing on July 3, 1991.
It is abundantly clear from the record that Dr. McKay’s testimony referred to claimant’s maximum medical improvement from only the psychological perspective. It is also clear that the JCC did not reject the testimony of claimant’s orthopedic providers who found claimant PTD no later than October 2, 1989. While there may be a dispute as to the date of psychological MMI, such a dispute is immaterial to the award of PTD benefits in a case such as this, where the claimant is shown to be permanently totally disabled as the result of his orthopedic injuries alone. Amfesco Duramil Division v. Guzman, 596 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); John Barley Memorial v. Gillam, 550 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Accordingly, we vacate the order of October 15, 1991, and remand the case to the JCC with directions to reinstate the prior order of September 4, 1991.
VACATED and REMANDED with directions.
BOOTH, SMITH and MINER, 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)…a perma [*177] nent total disability, however, PTD benefits may not be rejected on the ground that a psychiatric condition has not been resolved. See McFarlane, Ferguson v. Whaley, 641 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), Crews v. Hussman Refrigeration, 616 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), and John Barley Mem’l v. Gillam, 550 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Here, Ostoyic argues that the award of PTD benefits can be sustained on the record evidence regarding her orthopedic condition without regard to the status of…
-
McFARLANE v. Hamilton H. Whaley, 641 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…, and the permanent total award was predicated solely on the claimant’s physical injuries. In these circumstances a permanent total award may be made without regard to the status of the claimant’s psychiatric condition. See Crews v. Hussman Refrig., 616 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Amfesco Duramil Division v. Guzman, 596 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); John Barley Memorial v. Gillam, 550 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The employer/carrier contend that the cited cases require clear evidence in these cir…
Authorities Cited
- John Barley Mem'l & Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. Gillam, 550 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Amfesco Duramil Division v. Pastor Guzman, 596 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)