C. & B. INTERIORS AND JOHNS EASTERN COMPANY, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
RALPH CRISPINO, 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.
The appellate court reversed an award of wage loss benefits in a workers' compensation case. The court found no competent substantial evidence to support the award because the claimant had no physical limitations after reaching maximum medical improvement, despite his own complaints of pain.
No, the claimant's bare complaints of pain and inability to work were insufficient to override the medical testimony that he had no physical limitations and could return to his previous employment.
[1] A claimant's bare complaints of continued pain, without objective medical evidence of physical limitations, are insufficient to override medical testimony stating the cla…
[2] An award of wage loss benefits requires proof that the inability to obtain work is due to a physical disability related to the industrial accident.
Previewing 2 of 3 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““[a] claimant’s ‘bare complaints of continued pain so that the claimant feels unable to work’ is not a condition that is ‘readily observable by lay people.’ Such evidence is insufficient to override medical testimony to the contrary and to prove inability to work.””
This quote establishes the legal principle that subjective pain complaints alone, without objective medical evidence, cannot override medical testimony regarding work capacity.
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 sustained a work-related compression fracture. The only medical opinion stated the claimant had a 6% permanent impairment due to the heal…
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 Claim For Wage Loss Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
In this workers’ compensation appeal, employer and carrier (“E/C”) contend there is no competent substantial evidence to support the award of wage loss benefits, specifically because claimant suffered no physical limitations upon his ability to work after he reached maximum medical improvement (“MMI”).
We agree and reverse. Crispino sustained a compression fracture as a result of a work related accident. The only medical opinion rendered as to Crispino’s post-MMI condition was that of Dr. Lascelle. Dr. Lascelle opined claimant has a 6% permanent impairment based on the AMA Guidelines due simply to the existence of the healed compression fracture. He said claimant has no loss of range of motion as a result of the fracture, he placed no physical restrictions on claimant, and he thought claimant could return to his previous work as a carpenter.
With regard to claimant’s testimony as to his present physical limitations, this case is similar to Kyle v. Davis, 435 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), and Oak Crest Enterprises, Inc. v. Ford, 411 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
In Davis, claimant’s doctors said he was capable of light duty work, but claimant said he was unable to perform such work due to pain. This court repeated the well-established principle that “[a] claimant’s ‘bare complaints of continued pain so that the claimant feels unable to work’ is not a condition that is ‘readily observable by lay people.’ Such evidence is insufficient to override medical testimony to the contrary and to prove inability to work.” In Ford, the court noted, “[i]n view of the fact that both physicians who testified in the case were of the opinion that claimant could work without limitation and was in need of no additional medical treatment, the claimant’s testimony that she could not work is wholly inadequate to prove her entitlement to wage loss benefits.” Claimant did not show' that his inability to obtain work was due to physical disability related to the industrial accident, and the award of wage loss benefits must be reversed.
REVERSED.
SHIVERS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Arc Kyle & CNA Ins. Grp. v. Davis, 435 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- OAK Crest Enters., Inc. v. Ford, 411 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)