DOROTHY ALLEN, APPELLANT,
v.
PROTEL, INC., AND TRAVELERS INSURANCE 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 this second appeal of a workers' compensation case, the court reversed the lower court's denial of permanent total disability benefits, finding that the judge's rejection of the expert medical advisor's opinion was unsupported by competent, substantial evidence and that no other medical evidence in the record could support a finding of non-disability.
The court held that the judge's rejection of the expert medical advisor's opinion was not supported by competent, substantial evidence and that because the judge had rejected all other medical opinions regarding disability status, no competent, substantial evidence remained in the record to support a conclusion other than that the claimant was permanently and totally disabled.
[1] A judge of compensation claims may not deny a claim for permanent total disability benefits based solely on personal observations of the claimant without supporting medic…
[2] A finding of permanent impairment, like a finding of permanent total disability, must be supported by the opinion of a medical expert.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“no medical evidence remained before the [judge of compensation claims] from which he could conclude that claimant was not [permanently and totally disabled]”
Establishes that rejection of all medical evidence supporting non-disability leaves no evidentiary basis for denying benefits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDorothy Allen, a claimant in a workers' compensation case, sought permanent total disability benefits. An expert medical advisor opined that Allen had…
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 Psychiatric Disability cases and more on FLexlaw
WEBSTER, J.
This is the second time this workers’ compensation case has been before us. On the prior appeal, we reversed the order holding that claimant was not permanently and totally disabled “because the findings recited in the order [wejre so conflicting and inconsistent as to make meaningful review impossible.” Allen v. Protel, Inc., 852 So. 2d 916, 918 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
We held that the reason recited for rejection of the expert medical advisor’s opinion that claimant had reached maximum medical improvement and was totally disabled from a psychiatric standpoint was insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption of correctness to be accorded to such an opinion, particularly in light of other medical findings made, id. at 920; and noted that, having rejected the opinions of the employer’s and carrier’s medical experts, “no medical evidence remained before the [judge of compensation claims] from which he could conclude that claimant was not [permanently and totally disabled].” Id.
However, stating that “it is not our function to evaluate and weigh the evidence produced below,” we remanded for further proceedings consistent with our opinion. Id. at 921.
On remand, the judge did not conduct a hearing. Instead, over claimant’s objection, he made additional findings and directed the employer and carrier to draft an order consistent with those findings. The ensuing order again denied the request for permanent total disability benefits, for essentially the same reasons as had been expressed in the order we had reversed, but with embellishments. However, we conclude that those embellish ments are not sufficient to overcome our prior ruling.
We again conclude that the record does not contain competent, substantial evidence to support the judge’s finding that the expert medical advisor’s opinion that claimant had reached maximum medical improvement and was permanently and totally disabled from a psychiatric standpoint was clearly and convincingly erroneous. See id. at 920 (citing Walgreen Co. v. Carver, 770 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)). Because the judge has again rejected the opinions of the employer’s and carrier’s medical experts that claimant is not permanently and totally disabled, there is no competent, substantial evidence in the record from which the judge might reach any conclusion other than that claimant is permanently and totally disabled.
Accordingly, we again reverse and remand, this time with instructions that the judge enter an order granting the claim for permanent total disability benefits.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
DAVIS and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Walgreen Co. & Kemper Ins. Co. v. Carver, 770 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Allen v. Protel, Inc., 852 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)