RANDALL REESE, APPELLANT,
v.
SPENCER PEST CONTROL AND CIGNA PROPERTY & CASUALTY 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.
In a workers' compensation case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the judge of compensation claims' denial of massage therapy benefits, finding the JCC abused his discretion by rejecting unrefuted medical testimony that the claimant suffered from physical symptoms (muscle spasms and stiffening) for which massage therapy would be beneficial.
The judge of compensation claims abused his discretion by rejecting Dr. Weiss's unrefuted medical testimony without a reasonable explanation based on competent substantial evidence. The court reversed and remanded, directing the JCC to either offer a reasonable explanation for rejecting the testimony or accept the testimony and award appropriate benefits.
[1] A workers' compensation judge abuses discretion by rejecting unrefuted medical testimony without a reasonable explanation.
[2] A workers' compensation judge must base conclusions on competent substantial evidence.
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“This record is devoid of competent substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the JCC that claimant's main problems are emotional and that massage therapy will not be of benefit to the claimant.”
Establishes that the JCC's finding was unsupported by the evidence 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 intelligenceClaimant Randall Reese suffered a compensable injury resulting in physical symptoms including muscle spasms, stiffening, and loss of flexibility. Dr. …
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 Chronic Pain Syndrome cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This record is devoid of competent substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the JCC that claimant’s main problems are emotional and that massage therapy will not be of benefit to the claimant. The unrefuted medical testimony clearly states that claimant currently suffers from physical symptoms of muscle spasm, stiffening and loss of flexibility as a direct result of his compensable injury, and that the requested massage therapy will be beneficial in alleviating these problems.
Furthermore, Dr. Weiss, claimant’s authorized treating physician, testified expressly that claimant does not suffer from chrome pain syndrome. The JCC appears to have relied upon the deposition of a second doctor, taken nearly two years before, with reference to an earlier claim for a home spa with massaging jets. That second doctor testified that a home spa was not warranted for claimant, and would be used more for relaxation than for any beneficial treatment.
However, he testified expressly that whirlpool massage therapy would be justified if claimant suffered from muscle spasms and rigidity. The only expert testimony regarding claimant’s current physical condition which was before the JCC in regard to the current claim for massage therapy was that claimant does currently suffer muscle spasms and loss of flexibility. The JCC abused his discretion in rejecting the unrefuted medical testimony without a reasonable explanation. See Johnson v. Seacrest Management, Inc., 587 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND with directions to offer a reasonable explanation based upon competent substantial evidence for the rejection of Dr. Weiss’s testimony, or to accept the testimony and award appropriate benefits.
ALLEN, WEBSTER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.