Hubbell v. Triple J of Lee County, 90-3852
|20 December 1991
|590 So.2d 1084
|17 Fla. L. Weekly D41 Donald HUBBELL, Appellant, v. TRIPLE J OF LEE COUNTY and Executive Risk Consultants, Inc., Appellees.
|Florida District Court of Appeals
Donna L. Schnorr, Ft. Myers and Bill McCabe, Longwood, for appellant.
Michael J. D'Agostino, St. James City, David A. Danielson, of Danielson, Clarke & Pumpian, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Diane H. Tutt, of Diane H. Tutt, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.
The claimant brings this appeal from the order of the Judge of Compensation Claims denying his claim for medical treatment and payment of past medical bills on the basis that claimant sustained a new injury which resulted in the need for further ongoing treatment unrelated to the industrial accident. For the following reasons, we reverse.
On October 11, 1988, claimant injured the back of his head, left shoulder, neck and chest in an industrial accident. He subsequently received treatment from Dr. Dusseau, a neurosurgeon, and Dr. Williams, a chiropractor. His last treatment with Dr. Williams was in November 1988, and he last saw Dr. Dusseau concerning his neck injury in February 1989. Thereafter, he did not again visit Dr. Dusseau until late June 1989 complaining of a major flare-up of pain in his neck. He reported to Dr. Dusseau that just a few weeks prior to his visit, he had attempted to water-ski without incident, but began to feel the onset of pain in his neck the next day.
The JCC relied on Dr. Dusseau's deposition testimony to the effect that the treatment required after June 21, 1989, was related to the water-skiing incident and not to the industrial accident, for which claimant had not received treatment since February 1989. In short, the JCC concluded that claimant sustained a subsequent intervening accident when he attempted to water-ski. Based on the record before us, we must disagree.
First, we disagree that Dr. Dusseau's testimony supports the conclusion that the treatment he rendered to claimant after June 21, 1989, related to the water-skiing incident and not to the industrial accident. Because Dr. Dusseau's testimony was rendered by way of deposition, we are on equal footing with the JCC in analyzing the legal effect of his testimony. Jones v. Citrus Central, Inc., 537 So.2d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). We find Dr. Dusseau's deposition testimony highly equivocal on the issue of causation. Dr. Dusseau testified that claimant's initial industrial accident resulted in a soft tissue injury which could be expected to flare-up and which could result in continued neck pain. He further described the symptoms...
To continue readingRequest your trial
Stewart v. Tampa Maid Sea Products, 92-4364
...with the judge of compensation claims in evaluating and weighing medical testimony given by deposition. Hubbell v. Triple J of Lee County, 590 So.2d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA1992); Blackburn v. Taylor, 566 So.2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 577 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1990); Hidden Harbor Boatworks ......
Bass v. General Motors Corp., 92-1197
...evidence was presented below by way of deposition and is therefore subject to de novo review by this court. Hubbell v. Triple J of Lee County, 590 So.2d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Having carefully reviewed the record, we cannot agree with the JCC that the hypothetical questions posed to Drs.......