FRANKLIN ROUSE, APPELLANT,
v.
WYLDWOOD TROPICAL NURSERIES AND OHIO CASUALTY 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.
Rouse appealed a workers' compensation deputy commissioner's clarification order regarding permanent partial disability rating. The Florida appellate court reversed, finding the commissioner's reasoning for accepting one doctor's opinion over others was invalid and not supported by competent substantial evidence, and remanded for an award based on ten percent permanent partial disability.
The court reversed, holding that the commissioner's explanation for discounting the doctors' opinions was invalid and not a proper basis for compromise, and that there was no competent substantial evidence supporting a three percent rating. The court found competent substantial evidence supported a ten percent permanent partial disability award based on anatomical impairment.
[1] A deputy commissioner's clarification order may be reversed if it fails to provide a valid reason for accepting one medical opinion over others.
[2] A deputy commissioner may not discount a doctor's opinion based solely on the doctor's reputation for being liberal in ratings.
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“the explanation does not provide a valid reason for accepting the one medical opinion of zero disability over the opinions of the other two doctors and compromising the result at three percent permanent impairment”
Establishes that the commissioner's stated reasons for choosing between competing medical opinions were legally insufficient and arbitrary.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRouse suffered a work injury and the deputy commissioner initially awarded three percent permanent partial disability. On remand from a prior appeal, …
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 Physical Impairment cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
Appellant appeals a clarification order entered by the deputy commissioner pursuant to a mandate of this Court. We reverse.
On January 16, 1981, this Court reversed the deputy commissioner’s order in this case and remanded to the deputy commissioner to clarify his reasoning for accepting one doctor’s opinion as to maximum medical improvement over that of the other doctors and for finding a three percent permanent partial disability when the medical evidence indicated that appellant had suffered either a zero percent or a ten percent permanent impairment. Rouse v. Wyldwood Tropical Nursery, et al., 392 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The court also directed the deputy commissioner to state whether his finding of disability was based on physical impairment or diminution of wage-earning capacity.
In his clarification order, the deputy commissioner stated that he accepted the one doctor’s opinion over that of another doctor, because the other doctor has a reputation for being extremely liberal in his ratings, and, therefore, his opinions must be discounted. The deputy commissioner also apparently gave no consideration to the testimony of another doctor who also found that appellant had suffered a ten percent permanent impairment because that doctor was a general practitioner rather than an orthopedic surgeon. Under the facts of this case, the explanation does not provide a valid reason for accepting the one medical opinion of zero disability over the opinions of the other two doctors and compromising the result at three percent permanent impairment. In the clarification order, the deputy commissioner further stated that his finding of a three percent permanent partial disability is an anatomical rating arrived at after considering all the medical opinions and appellant’s testimony as to his condition and limitations. The record does not contain competent substantial evidence to support that finding. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support a finding of a ten percent permanent partial disability and that maximum medical improvement occurred on May 25, 1979. We, therefore, reverse and remand for entry of an award accordingly.
Appellant contends that the deputy commissioner erred in failing to render an award based on loss of wage-earning capacity. However, the evidence is insufficient to show a loss of wage-earning capacity beyond the ten percent anatomical disability. Thus, we find no error in that regard.
REVERSED and REMANDED for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.
SHIVERS and WIGGINTON, JJ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rouse v. Wyldwood Tropical Nursery & Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 392 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)