REMIGIO GUTIERREZ, PETITIONER,
v.
LEBCA AIRLINES, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS
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.
Gutierrez sought workers' compensation benefits for a right arm injury and challenged the Industrial Claims Judge's determination of maximum medical improvement (MMI) date, which would affect the timing of his permanent partial disability benefits. The Florida Supreme Court granted certiorari, finding the MMI date of October 31, 1967 was unsupported by evidence and remanded for reconsideration of the correct date based on the treating physician's October 18, 1965 testimony.
The court held that the October 31, 1967 MMI date was not supported by competent evidence and remanded for the judge to determine the correct date based on the treating physician's testimony and reports. The court affirmed the other contested findings regarding disability percentage and future medical care as sufficiently supported by evidence.
[1] A finding of maximum medical improvement date must be supported by competent evidence.
[2] A scrivener's error in a date may be considered when assessing the evidence supporting a finding.
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“Maximum medical improvement date is the maximum concern to claimant (petitioner) here. A later date would of course extend total benefits by whatever later time the 30% permanent partial disability of the right arm award would start.”
Establishes that the MMI date is the critical issue affecting when benefits commence and their total duration.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGutierrez suffered a right arm injury and was awarded 30% permanent partial disability benefits. The treating physician testified to an October 18, 19…
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 Partial Disability cases and more on FLexlaw
Maximum medical improvement date is the maximum concern to claimant (petitioner) here. A later date would of course extend total benefits by whatever later time the 30% permanent partial disability of the right arm award would start. The able Judge of Industrial Claims made a finding of October 31, 1967, although the treating physician testified to October 18, 1965, and made reference to an October 23, 1965, medical report by him which gave a rating. The dates, both in October of succeeding years, 1967 and 1968, are even suggestive of a possible scrivener’s error of the year used. In any event, there does not appear to be competent supporting evidence of the 1967 date and accordingly, in this respect only, certiorari is granted and the cause remanded to the I.C. Judge to find such correct date of maximum improvement from which the permanent partial shall run under the statute and to make such further award for any increased attorney’s fee for such increased benefits as may appear.
*137Findings of the I.C. Judge against the other two contested points: (1) that the percentage of disability should have been of the body as a whole, rather than of the arm only, and (2) alleged future medical care required are amply supported by the evidence.
Order of the Industrial Relations Commission is accordingly reversed to the extent outlined and the matter is remanded to the I.C. Judge for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. In all other respects, the Commission’s order is affirmed.
For his successful proceeding before this Court, the petitioner’s attorney is awarded the sum of $500.00.
ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.