Dollar General Corp. v. Macdonald

Citation928 So.2d 464
Decision Date03 May 2006
Docket NumberNo. 1D05-2204.,1D05-2204.
PartiesDOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION and Dollar General Risk Management, Appellants, v. Linda MacDONALD, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

Curt L. Harbsmeier and Jeffrey E. Appel of Harbsmeier, DeZayas, Appel, Harden & DeBari, LLP, Lakeland, Attorneys for Appellants.

Robert Wohn, Cocoa; and Bill McCabe of Shepherd, McCabe & Cooley, Longwood, Attorneys for Appellee.

THOMAS, J.

This is an appeal of a final order of the Judge of Compensation Claims ("JCC") awarding Appellee/Claimant ("Claimant") treatment for "all medically necessary and causally related cervical spinal conditions stemming from [her injury on March 1, 2003.]" Because we find that the award is not supported by competent and substantial evidence, we reverse.

Claimant suffered two injuries during her employment as an assistant manager with Appellant Dollar General Stores. Claimant's first injury occurred on or about March 1, 2003, and her second injury occurred on August 13, 2003. Claimant's petition for benefits was based solely on her first injury and listed the date of injury as March 1, 2003. Claimant's petition asserted that this injury was the cause of her need for treatment and listed her injuries as "back, neck, hands, and wrist." However, in her testimony, Claimant stated that she did not experience any neck or hand pain until August 13, 2003, when she picked up seven or eight 20-pound boxes of tile for a customer.

Claimant saw Dr. Richard Hynes for an independent medical examination before the merits hearing. Following the examination, Dr. Hynes diagnosed a complex disk problem. Dr. Hynes explained that, in his opinion and within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Claimant suffered from an underlying degenerative disk, and she herniated that disk after picking up the boxes of tile on August 13, 2003, not in March.

Because Dr. Hynes testified that Claimant had an underlying degenerative disk, it was necessary for the JCC to determine the major contributing cause of Claimant's neck condition. Under section 440.09(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2002),

[i]f an injury arising out of and in the course of employment combines with a preexisting disease or condition to cause . . . need for treatment, the employer must pay compensation or benefits required by this chapter only to the extent that the injury arising out of and in the course of employment is and remains the major contributing cause of . . . need for treatment.

This court has interpreted "major contributing cause" to mean the cause that contributes "more to the claimant's . . . need for treatment than any other single cause." Closet Maid v. Sykes, 763 So.2d 377, 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (en banc).

The JCC found that Dr. Hynes was in the best position to provide an opinion as to the major contributing cause of Claimant's injury. Dr. Hynes testified that Claimant's continued work with her employer could have made her condition worse. In addition, Dr. Hynes stated that Claimant may have experienced some neck and back pain prior to August 2003. Dr. Hynes's medical opinion, however, was that Claimant's herniated disk injury was caused by the specific August incident. Dr. Hynes stated that, hypothetically, an injury such as Claimant's could be due to repetitive trauma, but that, "clearly from how the patient describes her injury, specifically lifting seven or eight boxes of 20-pound tiles and immediate onset of increasing and significant pain, that's likely when she actually ruptured [her disk]." Finding that no other medical evidence rebutted Dr. Hynes's testimony, the JCC stated that "it was Dr. Hynes opinion that Claimant's herniated disk had been caused by the heavy work and repetitive heavy lifting at her work."

The standard of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Hale v. Shear Express, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 29, 2006
    ...JCC and engage in its own appellate fact finding. Such an endeavor is specifically prohibited by law. See Dollar General Corp. v. MacDonald, 928 So.2d 464, 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (holding "a JCC's conclusion as to factual issues will be affirmed if the record provides competent, substantia......
  • Malichi v. Archdiocese of Miami
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • November 8, 2006
    ...(Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (considering whether the claimant knowingly made a false statement to obtain benefits); Dollar Gen. Corp. v. MacDonald, 928 So.2d 464, 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (holding that the claimant's work activity was not the "major contributing cause" of the injury); European Marbl......
  • CHURCH v. DURAN
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 13, 2010
    ...and argument at the final hearing, and was tried by consent due to the E/C's failure to object. See Dollar Gen. Corp. v. MacDonald, 928 So.2d 464, 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (holding issues in workers' compensation cases may be tried by consent); cf. Sabal Transp. v. Brooks, 666 So.2d 1032 (Fl......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT