Dyer v. Lakeland Health Care Center
| Decision Date | 11 July 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-1863,90-1863 |
| Citation | 582 So.2d 760 |
| Parties | Hermine DYER, Appellant, v. LAKELAND HEALTH CARE CENTER, St. Paul Insurance Company, Appellees. 582 So.2d 760, 16 Fla. L. Week. D1819 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David M. Hammond of David M. Hammond, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.
James T. Earle of Earle & Thompson, St. Petersburg, for appellees.
Claimant, Hermine Dyer, appeals an order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC) denying payment of outstanding medical bills for chiropractic treatment, temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits from the date compensation was terminated on June 27, 1986 through August 4, 1986, and permanent wage-loss (WL) benefits from August 4, 1986 until the hearing (February 15, 1990). Dyer contends (1) that the JCC erred in concluding that the treatment provided after August 4, 1986, by Dyer's chiropractor, Dr. Merritt, was neither reasonable nor necessary, and, consequently, that the JCC erred in denying Dyer permanent WL benefits after that date; and (2) that the JCC erred in concluding that she voluntarily limited her income and did not conduct a valid work search and thus was not entitled to TPD benefits. We reverse and remand with directions.
As to the first issue, there is no competent, substantial evidence (CSE) to support the JCC's conclusion that Dr. Merritt's treatment of Dyer after August 4, 1986 was unnecessary and unreasonable. While working as a nursing assistant, Dyer was injured in two work-related accidents on May 25, 1985 and on December 2, 1985. None of the physicians who treated Dyer after her second injury testified that there was any reason to disbelieve her reports of continuing back pain, and none testified that she had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) in regard to such pain. Although Dr. Merritt initially opined that Dyer had attained chiropractic MMI on August 4, 1986 with no permanent impairment (PI), he later emphasized at each of his two depositions that he had reconsidered and changed his position, after continued treatment and thermographic testing of claimant. 1
The JCC concluded that Dyer's testimony of subjective pain was not believable because Dyer did not demonstrate any observable physical discomfort at the hearing. Dyer, however, sought payment for treatment she received prior to the hearing, rather than for continuing treatment. Therefore, it is irrelevant that Dyer demonstrated no observable discomfort at the hearing. All of the evidence instead supports the conclusion that Dr. Merritt's treatment after August 4, 1986 was reasonable and necessary.
As to issue relating to the denial of Dyer's claim for permanent WL benefits from August 4, 1986 through the hearing, the JCC so found apparently based on Dr. Merritt's opinion that Dyer had reached MMI with no PI on August 4, 1986. Having previously rejected this conclusion as having no foundation in the record, we accordingly conclude that there is no CSE to support the denial of such benefits.
Moreover the record demonstrates that Dyer was not required to conduct a work search. In the first place, a work search is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nickolls v. University of Florida
...duty to conduct a work search. See, e.g., Saavedra v. Cedars Medical Ctr., 584 So.2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Dyer v. Lakeland Health Care Ctr., 582 So.2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Stanley v. Okeelanta Corp., 575 So.2d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Pan American World Airways v. Mash, 573 So.2d 38......
-
City of Miami v. Jacoby
...any alleged incapacity to work. See, e.g., Saavedra v. Cedars Medical Ctr., 584 So.2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA1991); Dyer v. Lakeland Health Care Ctr., 582 So.2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA1991); Stanley v. Okeelanta Corp., 575 So.2d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA1991); Pan Am. World Airways v. Mash, 573 So.2d 383 (Fla.......
-
Valdez v. Entenmann's Bakery, 92-2606
...arising from the compensable injury, such departure does not constitute voluntary limitation of income. See Dyer v. Lakeland Health Care Center, 582 So.2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (claimant did not voluntarily limit her income by refusing work when the evidence showed she had work restrictio......