WALT DISNEY WORLD AND WALT DISNEY WORLD WORKERS' COMPENSATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
SHEILA K. DESSELLES, 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.
Walt Disney World appeals a workers' compensation judge's order granting permanent total disability (PTD) benefits to an employee based on a significant change in condition. The Florida appellate court affirms the award of PTD benefits but remands because the record lacks evidence supporting the retroactive effective date chosen by the judge.
The court affirms that the claimant demonstrated a significant change in condition warranting PTD benefits, but reverses and remands because the record contains no evidence to support the November 8, 2001 effective date. The judge of compensation claims must remand to determine the actual date the evidence establishes a significant change in the claimant's mental condition occurred.
[1] A party seeking modification of a prior order based on a change in condition must demonstrate by new and positive evidence that the claimant's condition has changed such…
[2] A change in condition justifying modification of a prior order cannot be one that was anticipated by the original diagnoses and must arise from evidentiary factors unknow…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A party seeking a change in condition "must demonstrate by new and positive evidence that the claimant's condition has changed so that the conditions that were the foundation of the prior order no longer operate."”
Establishes the legal standard for proving a significant change in condition in workers' compensation cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant suffered a compensable work injury. A prior order had denied permanent total disability benefits. The judge of compensation claims subseq…
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 Modification Of Prior Order cases and more on FLexlaw
HAWKES, J.
Walt Disney World appeals the Judge of Compensation Claims’ (JCC) order which, after finding the Claimant suffered a significant change in condition, granted a modification of a prior order denying permanent total disability (PTD) benefits pur suant to section 440.28, Florida Statutes (2001). We affirm the award of PTD benefits. However, because there is no record evidence to support the effective date of the award, we remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
A party seeking a change in condition “must demonstrate by new and positive evidence that the claimant’s condition has changed so that the conditions that were the foundation of the prior order no longer operate.” Smith v. Polk County Bd. of Comm’rs, 843 So. 2d 321, 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). The change cannot be one anticipated by the original diagnoses and must be the product of evidentiary factors not known at the time of the initial proceeding. See Robinson v. JDM Country Club, 455 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Here, the JCC made the award retroactive to November 8, 2001, one day after the date of the initial order denying PTD benefits. The record before this court is totally devoid of any evidence that would support a finding of a substantial change in Claimant’s condition as of November 8, 2001.
The JCC’s order references several findings supporting his determination that Claimant had undergone a significant change in condition; among them were that:
1. Dr. Gutman placed Claimant on a no work status on October 28, 2003;
2. Claimant was accepted as disabled under the Social Security Act pursuant to an order dated April 15, 2003; and
3. Claimant’s November 19, 2003, testimony that her condition was worsening.
Because we are unable to determine if one of the factors referred to in the JCC’s order was more significant than another in the JCC’s fact-finding process, or if a combination of the factors resulted in the finding .of a significant change, we must remand. On remand, the JCC is to determine the date the evidence establishes a significant change in Claimant’s mental condition occurred.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ERVIN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Robinson v. JDM Country Club & Corporate Grp. Serv., 455 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Smith v. Polk Cnty. Bd. OF Comm'rs, 843 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)