Cardinal Industries, Inc. v. Dawkins
Decision Date | 16 January 1981 |
Docket Number | No. QQ-426,QQ-426 |
Parties | CARDINAL INDUSTRIES, INC., and Insurance Company of North America, Appellants, v. Clarence DAWKINS, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Donna L. Bergh, Orlando, for appellants.
Gary L. Stump, Wittaker, Pyle, Stump & Webster, Orlando, for appellee.
Appellants, employer/carrier, appeal from a workers' compensation order awarding certain temporary total disability benefits to appellee, ordering appellants to pay for continuing medical care for appellee and assessing attorney's fees. Competent substantial evidence supports the Judge of Industrial Claims' finding of temporary total disability from November 30, 1978, until January 24, 1979, and thus we affirm the benefits awarded therefor. However, as to the remaining temporary total disability benefits awarded and the award of continuing medical care, we reverse.
Appellee sustained a work-related injury in July 1978 when he strained a muscle in his lower back. He missed no work as a result of that injury and continued his work activities as usual, which included lifting heavy sheets of gypsum. On November 7, 1978, he sustained another injury when he fell from a jack and landed on his hand and buttocks on a cement surface. Following that accident, he continued normal work activities for two weeks, after which time he consulted Dr. Williams, a family physician. Dr. Williams took x-rays but found nothing wrong with appellee, and referred appellee to Dr. Madison, an orthopedist, who first saw appellee in December 1978. Dr. Madison prescribed a corset for appellee as well as physical therapy but did not place any restrictions on appellee in regard to his back. In January 1979, appellee was seen by Dr. Madison's partner, Dr. Mackey. Dr. Mackey found no objective indication of back injury but, based on appellee's subjective complaints, he prescribed a certain nerve treatment and physical therapy three times a week. Dr. Madison testified that during the time appellee was undergoing therapy, he was unable to work. He also testified that by January 24, 1979, he had performed all the appropriate tests and still found no objective findings of any back problems. Consequently, he prescribed no further treatment. Another doctor, Dr. Stanford, began to see appellee in February 1979 and, after taking extensive tests, concluded that he could find no cause for appellee's symptoms, and he had no treatment to offer.
At the hearing, appellee testified that he still suffers pain. He has not worked since December 11, 1978, and, at the time of the hearing in February 1979, he felt he was unable to work. The Judge of Industrial Claims concluded...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lake County Com'rs v. Walburn
...The claimant's testimony that he was unable to work is insufficient to establish his entitlement to TTD. Cardinal Industries, Inc. v. Dawkins, 392 So.2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Therefore the award of TTD benefits from February 8, 1980 to March 26, 1980 is Although he reached MMI on July 23......
-
Fair-Way Restaurant v. Fair, FAIR-WAY
...for work, without evidence that he had sought either further medical attention or a return to employment; Cardinal Industries, Inc. v. Dawkins, 392 So.2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), by the fact that there the claimant failed to follow recommendations by three treating physicians that he should......
-
Square G. Const. Co. v. Grace
...release for work, without evidence that he sought either further medical attention or return to employment; Cardinal Industries, Inc. v. Dawkins, 392 So.2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), involving impropriety of continued temporary total disability compensation for simple complaints of pain when ......
-
Bankhead Forest Industries, Inc. v. Lovett
...Paint Co. v. Crowley, supra. Lastly, employer claims under the authority of a Florida appellate court decision (Cardinal Industries, Inc. v. Dawkins, 392 So.2d 368 [Fla.App.1981] ), that employee has the burden of presenting experts or doctors to say she is unable to work or that she is not......