Blocker v. Ardmore Farms

8 Citing cases

  1. Gaddis v. Allied Plastics

    649 So. 2d 904 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 1 times
    Reversing because a judge of compensation claims rejected without explanation unrefuted medical evidence

    Nevertheless, because the JCC rejected without explanation unrefuted medical testimony by Dr. McCormick that Gaddis's back injury was caused by the industrial accident of April 28, 1992, we consider that the interests of justice would be better served by remand for clarification. See Blocker v. Ardmore Farms, 524 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA) (on motion for clarification), review denied, 531 So.2d 167 (Fla. 1988). In this regard, we observe that the JCC apparently overlooked Dr. McCormick's office notes of April 30, 1992, which reflect that Gaddis had complained of back pain on that date, which preceded the non-industrial lifting incident that the employer/carrier contends could have triggered claimant's back injury. Additionally, we note that the JCC made no express finding regarding Gaddis's credibility or lack thereof.

  2. Lindsay v. TVS Trucking Co., Claims Center

    565 So. 2d 864 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 3 times

    The sole issues are whether the claimant's on-the-job injury of August 16, 1987, had healed and whether the present condition was caused solely by the 1986 injury. Causation of non-observable injuries is essentially a medical question. Thomas v. The Salvation Army, 562 So.2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Blocker v. Ardmore Farms, 524 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) rev. denied 531 So.2d 167 (Fla. 1988) A judge of compensation claims may not reject unrefuted medical testimony as to causation without a reasonable explanation for doing so. Severini v. Pan American Beauty School, 557 So.2d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). In the instant case, while there may have been some reason to question claimant's credibility, the judge of compensation claims never specifically enumerated why the claimant's lack of credibility led him to reject Dr. Christopher's testimony.

  3. Hillsborough County School Board v. Williams

    565 So. 2d 852 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 8 times

    We cannot make such an assumption where there is no medical evidence to support it. The assumption we make is that the JCC failed to discuss Dr. Murphy's degenerative disease opinion either because he neglected to consider it or because he did consider it and he tacitly rejected it. But even assuming the JCC considered and rejected Dr. Murphy's opinion on this point, he would have nevertheless been required to offer a sufficient reason for doing so because there is no medical evidence in the record that refutes Dr. Murphy's opinion. Blocker v. Ardmore Farms, 524 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (where the court remanded to the JCC to revisit her finding that no compensable injury occurred where it was unclear whether she considered and rejected unrebutted medical testimony of compensability). Thus, not only would it be improper to make a gratuitous assumption, but the failure to discuss evidence of preexisting idiopathy, especially in light of there being no evidence to suggest the contrary, renders the JCC's order incomplete.

  4. Lerman v. Broward Cty. Bd. of Com'rs

    555 So. 2d 419 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 6 times

    It is an abuse of discretion to reject unrefuted medical testimony on what is essentially a medical question, without a reasonable explanation. Olsen v. Wellcraft Marine Corporation, 540 So.2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); D'Amico v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 527 So.2d 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Blocker v. Ardmore Farms, 524 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA) review denied, 531 So.2d 167 (Fla. 1988); Giaramita v. Dade County School Board, 484 So.2d 1312, 1314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Therefore, we find the question of permanent total disability must be remanded to the deputy commissioner with directions to articulate with particularity, his reasons for rejecting unrefuted medical testimony that claimant is permanently and totally disabled from a medical standpoint, and to clarify the reasons for accepting Dr. Zager's opinion over that of claimant's treating physicians with respect to the mental aspect of claimant's health or to grant relief to claimant.

  5. Hamilton v. Early Bird Stud Farms

    540 So. 2d 134 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 2 times

    However, as noted above, the deputy rejected it as incredible, based on Hamilton's numerous previous compensation claims and a practice of seeking benefits after settlement agreements. Assuming arguendo that the deputy's finding on Hamilton's credibility is justified by his past conduct, a claimant's lack of credibility is not an adequate basis for rejection of competent evidence supporting his contention that his condition is work-related. Blocker v. Ardmore Farms, 524 So.2d 1081, 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Here, other evidence in the record shows that Hamilton suffered from a pre-existing back condition, objectively demonstrates that Hamilton did, in fact, complain of back and leg pain contemporaneously with the date of the accident, and reflects a type of accident (stepping in a hole and falling backwards) likely to result in a back injury.

  6. Carson v. Gaineswood Condominiums

    532 So. 2d 28 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 9 times

    Paul H. Cowart/Building Specialty v. Cowart, 481 So.2d 83, 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Nevertheless, where, as in the instant case, the issue before the deputy involves essentially a medical question, this court has required the deputy to "offer a sufficient reason for rejecting expert medical testimony, especially if such testimony is unrefuted." Blocker v. Ardmore Farms, 524 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). See also Mirlisena v. Chemlawn Corp., 527 So.2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). While generally, a deputy need not explain why he accepts the testimony of one doctor over that of several others, his discretion in this regard is not unbridled, since a deputy must still make "such findings of ultimate material fact upon which he relies, as are sufficient justification to show the basis of an award or a denial of the claim."

  7. Peters v. Armellini Exp. Lines

    527 So. 2d 266 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 19 times

    Section 440.185(1), Florida Statutes (1986) states that an employee shall give notice of an injury to the employer within thirty days after the date of the injury. Although the DC found that claimant failed to give notice to his employer within the statutorily required thirty-day period, section 440.185(1)(b) permits a DC to excuse the failure to give notice if "for some satisfactory reason such notice could not be given." This court has recently addressed this statutory language in the cases of Slater v. United Parcel Service, 507 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. dismissed, 518 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 1987) and Blocker v. Ardmore Farms, 524 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Slater v. United Parcel Service involved a claimant who injured his calf on December 24, 1984, during work. It is clear from the facts of the case that the claimant knew his pain was related to his employment injury. However, our court focused on the claimant's knowledge of the seriousness of his injury.

  8. Mirlisena v. Chemlawn Corp.

    527 So. 2d 908 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 4 times

    Both doctors causally related the claimant's condition, albeit an aggravation of a preexisting condition caused by the motorcycle accident, to the industrial accident. While a deputy may reject uncontroverted medical testimony as to causation in an appropriate case, he may not reject it without giving a sufficient reason for so doing. Blocker v. Ardmore Farms, 524 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Here, the deputy gave no reason for rejecting Dr. Bermann's testimony.