Hidden Harbor Boatworks v. Williams

• Decision Date: 12 September 1990
• Docket Number: No. 89-2494,89-2494
• Citation: 566 So.2d 595
• Parties: 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2332 HIDDEN HARBOR BOATWORKS and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellants, v. William K. WILLIAMS, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 595

566 So.2d 595

15 Fla. L. Weekly D2332

HIDDEN HARBOR BOATWORKS and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellants, v. William K. WILLIAMS, Appellee.

No. 89-2494.

District Court of Appeal of Florida First District.

Sept. 12, 1990.

Victoria H. Pflug, of Dickinson, O'Riorden, Gibbons, Quale, Shields & Carlton, P.A., Sarasota, for appellants/cross-appellees.

Alex Lancaster, P.A., Sarasota, for appellee/cross-appellant.

MINER, Judge.

The employer/carrier (e/c) appeal an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) finding that claimant's diffuse brain damage, visual pathway cerebral dysfunction, fatigue, depression, and decreased vibration sensibility in his legs were causally related to industrial exposure to toxic fumes and that the claimant suffered a permanent impairment (PPI). The claimant cross-appeals the JCC's denial of his claim for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits, applying deemed earnings and denying penalties. We affirm in part, and reverse in part.

The vantage point of this court is not inferior to that of the JCC in interpreting medical deposition evidence. Therefore, it is in as good a position to evaluate and weigh the medical testimony as the JCC since the parties introduced all medical testimony by depositions. See Haga v. Clay Hyder Trucking Lines, 397 So.2d 428, 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); McCabe v. Bechtel Power Corp., 510 So.2d 1056, 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Under the exposure theory, we find it demonstrates competent substantial evidence of a causal relationship between the claimant's toxic work exposure and his resulting symptomatology. See Lake v. Irwin Yacht & Marine Corp., 398 So.2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). We find the medical opinions the JCC relied upon are not based upon speculation or conjecture but upon a competent chain of evidence, reasonable inferences, and subjective, objective and deductive diagnosis which sufficiently laid the predicate for the doctors' opinions rendered within a reasonable medical probability. Moreover, we find that the e/c failed to overcome the established proof by competent substantial evidence that another cause of injury is more logical and consonant with reason under the logical cause doctrine. See City of Ft. Lauderdale v. Lindie, 496 So.2d 168 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), review denied, 506 So.2d 1042 (Fla.1987).

So long as there is a reasonable expectation that further improvement is possible, a claimant cannot be considered to have reached MMI. Aino's Custom Slip Covers v....