FAMILY DOLLAR STORES AND TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
AIDA HENDERSON, 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 court held that the record did not support a finding of a causal connection between the claimant's employment and her injury, as required by statute.
[1] An injury, its occupational cause, and any resulting manifestations or disability must be established to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and by objective medical…
[2] A chiropractor's opinion stating an impression is "secondary to the patient's injuries, occurring on [date]" is insufficient to establish a causal connection to employmen…
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 intelligenceA claimant sought workers' compensation benefits, and the judge relied on a chiropractor's opinion to establish causation. The employer and carrier ap…
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 Causal Connection Between Employment And Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The employer and carrier appeal a workers’ compensation order granting the claimant an evaluation and continuing treatment with a chiropractor, awarding temporary total disability or temporary partial disability benefits from June 12, 1997 through July 12, 1997, and ordering the payment of all of the claimant’s medical bills, hospital bills and prescriptions that are related to the claim. Because the record does not support a finding of a causal connection between the claimant’s employment and her injury, we reverse.
In Pyram v. Marriott International, 687 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), we concluded that the 1994 amendments to Chapter 440 created a new standard of proof for workers’ compensation claimants. Section 440.09(1), Florida Statutes establishes this new standard and states that “[t]he injury, its occupational cause, and any resulting manifestations or disability shall be established to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and by objective medical findings.”
In finding that the claimant’s injury was causally related to her employment, the judge relied on the opinion of Dr. Jacobs en, the claimant’s chiropractor. The only statement made by Dr. Jacobsen relating to causation is contained in his medical report on the claimant. In the report, Dr. Jacobsen notes that “[i]t appears that the above impression [cervical sprain/strain and lumbar sprain/strain] is secondary to the patient’s injuries, occurring on 4/14/97 [while at work], and are chronic/recurrent in nature.” This opinion does not support a finding of causation under section 440.09(1), Florida Statutes. Nor is the judge’s finding of causation supported by any other evidence in the record.
For these reasons, we reverse the final order awarding medical and indemnity benefits to the claimant. Because our holding is an adjudication on the merits, we need not address the evidentiary issues raised by the employer and carrier in this appeal.
Reversed.
BOOTH, BENTON and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nordic Track and The Hartford v. Zimmerman, 744 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…vocational counselor, Mr. Adato. The vocational evaluation finding that appellee was not employable was premised specifically on Dr. Kleiman’s later restrictions, and thus it is inadequate proof of PTD as well. See Family Dollar Stores v. Henderson, 718 So. 2d 931 (Fla. [*1123] 1st DCA 1998), and Pyram v. Marriott International, 687 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). REVERSED. JOANOS, ALLEN and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.…
-
Francois Guerlande v. Delray Beach Fairfield Inn & Suites/Travelers Ins., 283 So. 3d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…y and by objective medical findings.”); see also Ch. 03-412, s. 6, Laws of Fla. (substituting the currently applicable phrase, “objective relevant medical findings,” for “objective medical findings”); see generally Family Dollar Stores v. Henderson, 718 So. 2d 931, 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (noting that 1994 amendments to section 440.09(1) created a new standard of proof for workers’ compensation claimants); Pyram v. Marriott Int’l, 687 So. 2d 351, 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (“By its use of the phrase ‘shall be es…
Authorities Cited
- Jislaine Pyram v. Marriott Int'l & Marriott Cas. Claims, 687 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)