DELBERT CUMMINS, APPELLANT,
v.
WALT DISNEY WORLD COMPANY AND WALT DISNEY WORLD WORKERS' COMPENSATION, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the court affirmed the judge's decision to award permanent total disability benefits to an injured worker but found the apportionment calculation for a preexisting psychiatric condition lacked sufficient record support and therefore reversed and remanded for recalculation.
Although apportionment for preexisting conditions is appropriate under Evans v. Florida Industrial Commission, the court reversed because the judge failed to provide adequate record support for the specific percentages of apportionment used in calculating the employer's responsibility for benefits.
[1] Apportionment of workers' compensation benefits is appropriate when a claimant's disability is caused by both industrial accidents and preexisting conditions.
[2] A judge of compensation claims must have record support for the percentages of apportionment utilized in a workers' compensation award.
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“Under the facts of this case, the judge did not err in deciding that apportionment was appropriate.”
Establishes that apportionment for preexisting conditions is a valid legal principle under Evans v. Florida Industrial Commission.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDelbert Cummins sustained work-related orthopedic and neurological injuries resulting in a five percent and eight percent permanent partial impairment…
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 Apportionment Of Disability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation case, the judge of compensation claims (JCC) awarded appellant Delbert Cummins permanent total disability benefits but apportioned out 75 percent of the award based upon Cummins’ preexisting psyehopathological disability. Under the facts of this case, the judge did not err in deciding that apportionment was appropriate. Evans v. Florida Indus. Comm’n, 196 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1967). We must nevertheless reverse because the JCC erred in determining the amount of apportionment.
Claimant’s disability is made up of both psychiatric and physical components. The JCC found that claimant had a five percent permanent partial impairment to the body as a whole from his orthopedic condition, and an eight percent permánent partial impairment to the body as a whole from his neurological impairments. Neither of these conditions were preexisting. As to claimant’s psychiatric condition, the JCC found an overall permanent partial impairment of ten percent based upon the American Medical Association Guidelines. Dr. Guidera, the psychiatrist whose testimony was accepted by the JCC, believed that 60 percent of claimant’s psychiatric problems were related to the industrial accidents, and some 40 percent were due to a preexisting schizoid personality type. Dr. Michael Gutman, the psychiatrist who performed the independent medical evaluation, opined that claimant’s psychiatric condition was unrelated to his industrial accidents. The JCC found neither of these positions is “totally correct” and determined that E/C should be responsible for payment of only 25% of the permanent total disability benefits. Although we commend the JCC for his effort in attempting to follow Evans by determining an apportionment, we are unable to identify record support for the percentages of apportionment utilized. Accordingly, the ease must be remanded for further proceedings in order to allow a result that is fair to both the claimant and the employer. We find no error as to the points raised on cross-appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, REMANDED for further proceedings.
BARFIELD, C.J., and KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.