Benniefield v. City of Lakeland
| Decision Date | 08 April 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D12–2353.,1D12–2353. |
| Citation | 109 So.3d 1288 |
| Parties | Frank BENNIEFIELD, Appellant, v. CITY OF LAKELAND and Claims Center, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Bradley G. Smith of Smith, Feddeler & Smith, P.A., Lakeland, and Wendy S. Loquasto of Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Bettina N. Carrier and Thomas Vecchio of Vecchio, Carrier & Feldman, P.A., Lakeland, for Appellees.
In this workers' compensation appeal, Claimant challenges the Judge of Compensation Claims' (JCC's) denial of his claim for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits on grounds that the JCC erred regarding Claimant's date of maximum medical improvement (MMI) and further erred by denying penalties, interest, costs, and attorney's fees associated with that claim. Because we agree, we reverse and remand the case to the JCC for further proceedings.
On April 9, 2008, Claimant sustained a compensable back injury and was placed on MMI on January 7, 2009, by Dr. John C. Amann, his authorized treating provider. Thereafter, Claimant filed a petition for benefits (PFB) seeking PTD benefits from January 7, 2009, and continuing, along with penalties, interest, costs, and attorney's fees. The E/C contested the claim in its entirety on various grounds.
Subsequently, on February 23, 2012, Claimant fell when his walking cane collapsed.Upon returning to Dr. Amann for evaluation, the doctor opined that a new MRI was needed to assess Claimant's condition. Dr. Amann testified that Claimant's fall had “not yet” changed his opinion on the date of MMI and that it was too soon to determine whether the fall had exacerbated his compensable injury. According to Dr. Amann, additional surgery might be recommended upon review of Claimant's MRI results; he indicated that surgery may improve Claimant's condition. In light of Dr. Amann's testimony, the E/C asserted that, because Claimant's current status, restrictions, and future treatment were uncertain, Claimant's claim for PTD benefits was premature.
In the order on review, the JCC denied Claimant's claim for PTD benefits as premature on the basis that Claimant had not established that he was at MMI. In support, the JCC acknowledged Dr. Amann's testimony that Claimant's fall had not changed his opinion regarding Claimant's MMI status, but found that, given Dr. Amann's testimony regarding the need for an MRI to determine the extent of Claimant's condition, Claimant's current status could not be determined until after the MRI. Consequently, the JCC found that Claimant had failed to meet his burden to prove that he is at MMI. Claimant timely appealed.
To the extent a JCC's order turns on a resolution of the facts, the review standard is competent substantial evidence (CSE); to the extent it involved an interpretation of law, the standard is de novo. See Mylock v. Champion Int'l, 906 So.2d 363, 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); see also Lemmer v. Urban Elec., Inc., 947 So.2d 1196, 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) ().
The date of MMI is statutorily defined as “the date after which further recovery from, or lasting improvement to, an injury or disease can no longer reasonably be anticipated, based upon reasonable medical probability.” See§ 440.02(10), Fla. Stat. (2007). It is the claimant's burden to prove that he is at overall MMI or, if not at overall MMI, that the disability and restrictions from which he suffers are permanent. See East v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 51 So.3d 516 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Once a claimant's medical condition has improved as much as is reasonably expected under available and recommended remedial treatments, the claimant may be considered to be at MMI and entitled to PTD benefits for continuing disability even though it is anticipated that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Focht v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
-
Teco Energy, Inc. v. Williams, CASE NO. 1D17–0233
...substantial evidence ("CSE"); to the extent it involves an interpretation of law, the standard is de novo . Benniefield v. City of Lakeland, 109 So.3d 1288, 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).Qualifying Preexisting Conditions Once compensability of a work accident is established, an E/C may no longer......
-
Marraffino v. Stericycle/Sedgwick CMS, 1D18-2639
...1st DCA 1982) ). Furthermore, "workers' compensation benefits, by design, are to be paid in real time." Benniefield v. City of Lakeland , 109 So.3d 1288, 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).Here, Claimant is seeking entitlement to TPD benefits which allegedly became due at a different (i.e., later) ti......
-
City of Tavares v. Harper
...our review is de novo; but, to the extent it turns on the resolution of facts, review is for CSE. See Benniefield v. City of Lakeland, 109 So.3d 1288, 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).We begin our analysis with the language of the statute. It is well-established that "[w]hen the language of the sta......