Decks, Inc. of Florida v. Wright, RR-278

• Decision Date: 04 November 1980
• Docket Number: No. RR-278,RR-278
• Citation: 389 So.2d 1074
• Parties: DECKS, INC. OF FLORIDA and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Appellants, v. Norman WRIGHT, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1074

389 So.2d 1074

DECKS, INC. OF FLORIDA and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Appellants, v. Norman WRIGHT, Appellee.

No. RR-278.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 4, 1980.

James F. Pingel, Jr., of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P. A., Tampa, for appellants.

Scott Charlton of Peavyhouse, Giglio, Grant, Clark, Charlton & Mount, Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The employer appeals urging that the Judge of Industrial Claims erred in finding that claimant is temporarily and totally disabled, in finding that he incurred reasonable and necessary medical benefits, in awarding medical bills when none were introduced into evidence and in awarding future medical benefits. We agree in part.

Wright sustained a whiplash injury to his neck while driving his employer's vehicle at the employer's request. He suffered severe pain and was treated by a chiropractor. Although the treatment did not help, Wright attempted to return to work but was able to work for only one week. When he told his supervisor he was still having problems the supervisor "convinced (him) it wasn't bad enough to worry about."

The problems continued and Wright went to a medical doctor who diagnosed high blood pressure and hospitalized him. During this hospitalization, he also received therapy for muscle spasms.

At his deposition, which was the only evidence presented at the hearing, Wright testified he continued to have severe pain and headaches and that he had not been treated for high blood pressure prior to the accident.

The order finds that Wright was TTD from 9-19-78 to 12-17-78 except for one week, and requires the E/C to pay the medical and hospital bills incurred for treatment of the injury and for future remedial treatment. Implicit in the order is the finding of a causal relationship between the injury and Wright's high blood pressure. This finding is not supported by the record.

Disability within the meaning of the Worker's Compensation Act means incapacity due to a compensable accident and the claimant must establish a causal relationship between the accident and his disability based on a reasonable medical probability. That reasonable medical probability may be established by medical or lay testimony. Orange County Board of County Commissioners v. Brenemen, 233 So.2d 377 (Fla.1970); Aerospace Fabrication, Inc. v. Dodge, 8 FCR 339 (1974). However, lay testimony alone is not sufficient in all instances.

"Lay testimony is of probative value in establishing such simple matters as the existence and location of pain, sequence of events and actual ability or inability of the claimant to perform work."

Id. at 340-41.

We construe this language to mean that lay testimony can establish the necessary relationship as to conditions and symptoms which are within the actual knowledge and sensory experience of the claimant. However, lay testimony is not sufficient to establish the causal...