LOIS FERRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
PICK KWIK FOOD STORES, INC. AND UNITED SELF-INSURED SERVICES, 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.
Lois Ferris appealed a workers' compensation judge's decision denying her claim for psychiatric benefits arising from an industrial accident on August 11, 1991. The court affirmed the denial, finding insufficient evidence of causal connection between her psychiatric condition and the workplace injury under the applicable evidentiary standard.
The court held that overwhelming evidence supports the finding that no causal connection exists between Ferris's psychiatric condition and her industrial accident under the evidentiary standard in effect before the 1994 amendments. The court did not reach the retroactivity issue and affirmed the JCC's determination that Ferris sustained a 4% permanent impairment to her knee.
[1] Amendments to workers' compensation statutes that alter a claimant's burden of proof are generally considered procedural and apply retroactively.
[2] A claimant must demonstrate a causal connection between an industrial accident and a psychiatric condition to receive indemnity benefits and authorization for psychiatric…
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 overwhelming evidence supports the JCC's determination that there is no causal connection between her industrial accident and her psychiatric condition under the evidentiary standard in effect before the 1994 amendments to section 440.09(1)”
This establishes the court's conclusion that sufficient evidence supported the denial of psychiatric benefits under the applicable evidentiary standard.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLois Ferris suffered an industrial accident on August 11, 1991. She claimed indemnity benefits and authorization for psychiatric care, alleging her ps…
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 Evidentiary Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
The claimant, Lois Ferris, appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC), which denied her claim for indemnity benefits and authorization of psychiatric care based upon a finding that her psychiatric condition was not causally related to the industrial accident. The JCC determined that the 1994 amendments to sections 440.09(1) and 440.09(l)(a), Florida Statutes, are procedural changes that affect the claimant’s burden of proof, and were therefore applicable to her August 11, 1991, date of accident. The JCC concluded that the claimant did not meet her burden of showing a causal connection between her psychiatric condition and her industrial accident under - sections 440.09(1) and 440.09(l)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). In the alternative, the JCC determined that the claimant’s psychiatric condition was not causally related to her industrial accident under the more relaxed evidentiary standard in effect prior to the 1994 amendments to section 440.09(1).
Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we hold that the overwhelming evidence supports the JCC’s determination that there is no causal connection between her industrial accident and her psychiatric condition under the evidentiary standard in effect before the 1994 amendments to section 440.09(1). We therefore need not reach the claimant’s argument that the 1994 amendments to sections 440.09(1) and 440.09(l)(a) were not applicable to her claim. We farther find that the JCC’s determination that the claimant sustained a 4% permanent impairment to her knee is supported by competent substantial evidence.
Accordingly, the order of the JCC is AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD, C.J., and KAHN, J., concur.