JAMES BLIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
COMMERCIAL CARRIER AND COMCAR INDUSTRIES, INC., 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.
James Blight appeals a judge of compensation claims' denial of workers' compensation benefits, including wage loss, psychiatric care, and an independent medical examination. The appellate court affirms the denial of wage loss benefits but reverses the denials of palliative psychological care and an independent orthopedic examination, finding no evidence supported those denials.
The court affirmed the denial of wage loss benefits but reversed the denials of palliative psychological care and an independent medical examination. The JCC erred in finding causation was not established for the psychiatric depression and in failing to order continuation of palliative antidepressant medication. The JCC also erred in denying the orthopedic independent medical examination because even though Blight reached maximum medical improvement, he retained the right to an evaluation to determine his need for palliative care.
[1] A claimant establishes causation for psychiatric depression when the industrial injury is a contributing factor, even if outside stressors also play a role.
[2] A claimant is entitled to the continuation of palliative psychiatric medication when prescribed by a treating physician, even if maximum medical improvement has been reac…
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 JCC found that Blight's psychiatric depression was caused by both his industrial injuries and outside stressors. Accordingly, the JCC erred in finding that Blight failed to establish causation.”
Establishes that the JCC's own factual findings contradicted its legal conclusion regarding causation for psychiatric benefits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBlight suffered industrial injuries and subsequently developed psychiatric depression caused by both the industrial injuries and outside stressors. He…
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 Permanent Impairment cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Claimant, James Blight, appeals an order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC), denying each of his claims for benefits against the employer, Comear Industries, Inc., and carrier, Commercial Carrier. Blight raises issues relating to wage loss benefits, psychiatric care, and an orthopedic second opinion. We affirm without comment the denial of wage loss benefits, but reverse the JCC’s denial of palliative psychological care and an independent medical examination, because there was no evidence supporting the denial.
The JCC found that Blight’s psychiatric depression was caused by both his industrial injuries and outside stressors. Accordingly, the JCC erred in finding that Blight failed to establish causation.1 See Anderson v. Wales Indus., 688 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Ackley v. General Parcel Serv., 646 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Blight’s psychiatrist, Dr. Stuart Bernstein, testified that although Blight was at psychiatric maximum medical improvement and that he needed no additional treatment, he should keep taking his prescribed antidepressant. Accordingly, the JCC erred in failing to order the continuation of Blight’s palliative medication.
The JCC also erred in denying Blight’s request for an orthopedic independent medical examination, finding that it was not medically necessary and that Blight had previously received a second opinion. Blight’s previous second opinion was provided before his most recent surgery. Since then, he has reached maximum medical improvement with a two percent permanent impairment and has continuing complaints of pain from his injury. Although he is no longer entitled to remedial care, he nevertheless has the right to an evaluation to determine his need for palliative care. Ivey v. City of Sarasota, 533 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
We direct the JCC on remand to award Blight any penalties, interest, costs and attorney’s fees to which he is entitled in light of this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.
BENTON and PADOVANO, JJ., concur. . Blight’s injuries predate the 1994 statutory revisions, which require that the industrial accident be the major contributing cause of the need for treatment. § 440.09, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Terre Homler v. Fam. Auto Mart, 914 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…larly erred in denying claimant’s request for a neurologist and pain-management specialist. The law is clear that once a claimant establishes a PI, he or she is entitled to ongoing palliative care for the condition. See Blight v. Commercial Carrier, 711 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Ivey v. City of Sarasota, 533 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). In that the medical testimony and reports reflect that claimant has a continuing need for palliative care of her compensable neck injury, the JCC’s reasons for denyin…
Authorities Cited
- Ackley v. Gen. Parcel Serv. & Am. States Ins., 646 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Ivey v. City OF Sarasota & Hewitt, 533 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Anderson v. Wales Indus. & Gallagher Bassett Servs., 688 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)