CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, APPELLANT,
v.
BEN CHISOLM, 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.
In a workers' compensation case, the Florida appellate court reversed a modification order that required the employer to pay for orthopedic evaluation and medical bills related to a hemorrhoidectomy. The court held that the claimant failed to meet the burden for modification because the evidence presented was merely cumulative to prior hearings where the issues had already been decided against the claimant.
A claimant cannot obtain modification of a prior order under Section 440.28, Florida Statutes, by introducing cumulative evidence that merely adds to or controverts evidence already taken, particularly when the underlying issues of compensability and causal connection were previously litigated and determined against the claimant. The introduction of testimony that is merely more favorable to the claimant than that initially presented does not establish proper grounds for modification.
[1] Modification of a prior workers' compensation order is not permitted solely based on an increase in the quantum and probative force of evidence supporting a conclusion co…
[2] The introduction of cumulative evidence that merely adds to or controverts evidence already taken is insufficient to support modification of a prior workers' compensation…
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“Except as to the extent that modification is permitted by Section 440.28, Florida Statutes (1978), deputies' orders are governed by the principles of res judicata or estoppel.”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle governing modification orders 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 sought modification of a prior workers' compensation order, presenting evidence that his hemorrhoid condition had worsened since the prev…
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 Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation case, the employer appeals a modification order entered by the deputy commissioner which ordered employer to pay for an orthopedic evaluation of claimant and which ordered the employer to pay certain medical bills related to claimant’s hemorrhoidectomy performed June 19, 1980, based upon the deputy’s finding that claimant had suffered a change in condition. We reverse.
Except as to the extent that modification is permitted by Section 440.28, Florida Statutes (1978), deputies’ orders are governed by the principles of res judicata or estoppel. Power v. Joseph G. Moretti, Inc., 120 So. 2d 443 (Fla.1960). It is well-settled that the modification procedures set forth in Section 440.28 were not intended as affording a claimant an opportunity to reliti-gate an identical issue which had been previously determined, based solely upon an increase in the quantum and probative force of evidence in support of a conclusion contrary to that reached by prior determination. Hall v. Seaboard Maritime Corporation, 104 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). Thus, the introduction of cumulative evidence which does nothing more than add to or controvert evidence already taken is insufficient to support a modification. Sonny Boy’s Fruit Company v. Compton, 46 So. 2d 17 (Fla.1950).
A review of the record herein reveals that claimant failed to meet his burden to establish proper grounds for modification of the prior order. Although the evidence reveals that claimant’s hemorrhoid condition had worsened since the entry of the previous order, the record also reveals that the issue of the compensability of claimant’s present hemorrhoid condition was litigated in the prior hearings and was determined adversely to the claimant. Claimant may not now attempt to relitigate the issue of causal connection by the introduction of testimony which is merely more favorable to claimant than that initially presented and which should have been presented initially.
Similarly, we find that the requirement of payment by the employer for an orthopedic evaluation of claimant was erroneous. It appears that the compensability of claimant’s back condition was determined adversely to claimant by the deputy’s prior orders. The testimony presented at the modification proceeding was merely cumulative, and for the reasons stated above, did not establish grounds for modification of the prior order. Accordingly, the modification order appealed is reversed.
BOOTH and SHAW, JJ., concur. WENTWORTH, J., concurs and dissents with written opinion.
WENTWORTH, Judge,
concurring and dissenting in part.
The order for orthopedic evaluation should in my opinion be affirmed. The deputy properly found that earlier orders did not show disposition of the claim for back injury, and transcripts of the earlier hearings were not essential to the claim for modification. Under these circumstances the record does not support a res judicata defense. I would conclude that upon the evidence presented the order for further medical evaluation of the alleged back injury was correct.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Flesche v. Interstate Warehouse & U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 411 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…e would result in injustice. Our holding does not affect the application of the doctrine in other contexts, as in Florida Division of Corrections v. Morgan, 397 So. 2d 1026 (Fla.1981), and cases therein cited, and City of West Palm Beach v. Chisolm, 405 So. 2d 279 (Fla.App.1981). We are convinced that a “sink-or-swim” approach to the job search requirement has not and will not serve the interests of the employer/carrier, the claimant, nor the fair and equitable administration of the worker’s compensation law…
-
Wellcraft Marine Corp. & Crawford & Co. v. Turner, 435 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…Florida Statutes, deputies’ compensation orders are governed by the same principles of res judicata and estoppel as are applied to judgments of courts. Power v. Joseph G. Moretti, Inc., 120 So. 2d 443 (Fla.1960); City of West Palm Beach v. Chisolm, 405 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); compare Flesche v. Interstate Warehouse, 411 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Although the statutory scheme governing a claimant’s entitlement to wage-loss benefits affords the employer/carrier the right to contest on appropriate…
-
Univ. Inns & Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Belva Joyce Davis, 413 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…. E.g., McKenney v. School Board of Palm Beach County, 408 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Modification proceedings are not intended to permit a claimant to relitigate issues which have been previously determined. City of West Palm Beach v. Chisolm, 405 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Universal Erectors, Inc. v. Murphy, 410 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1982). Evidence which merely supplements or controverts that already taken is insufficient, as held in the oft-cited case of Sonny Boy’s Fruit Company v. Compton,…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hall v. Seaboard Mar. Corp. & Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 104 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Power v. Joseph G. Moretti, Inc., 120 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1960)
- Sonny Boy's Fruit Co. v. Compton, 46 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1950)