Jackson v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., BQ-198
| Decision Date | 29 December 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. BQ-198,BQ-198 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 448, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 64 Alfreda JACKSON, Appellant, v. PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC., and Hartford Ins. Group, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Barry A. Pemsler, of Richard & Pemsler, Miami, for appellant.
Mark L. Zientz, of Williams & Zientz, Coral Gables, for appellees.
Claimant seeks review of a workers' compensation order by which a claim for additional compensation, penalties and interest, and medical benefits, was denied. Employer/carrier concede that penalties and interest should have been awarded for the late payment of compensation. We find that the deputy applied an improper standard to the claim for chiropractic treatment, and that the record does not support the deputy's determination that claimant sustained no permanent impairment. We therefore reverse these aspects of the order appealed.
Claimant experienced industrial accidents on two successive days while working in employer's meat department. These accidents involved falls which produced injuries to claimant's shoulder, hip, and back. She received medical treatment and remained out of work for six weeks, after which she attempted to resume her former employment. Claimant testified that she was unable to satisfactorily perform her former job duties and since no lighter work was available the employment was terminated with claimant receiving a substantial lump sum retirement payment.
After a period of unemployment claimant obtained a job from which she was discharged after four weeks, and then after another period of unemployment she obtained a job with part-time hours. Claimant's testimony establishes only a minimal work search effort throughout this time. The deputy found that claimant did not make a good faith effort to obtain employment during the months for which the claim was filed, and the record provides adequate support for this factual determination. The claim for additional compensation was thus properly denied since claimant did not establish by an adequate job search or other evidence that her diminution in earnings was causally related to the industrial injury.
The record does not support the deputy's further determination that claimant sustained no permanent impairment. Although the treating orthopedic physician stated that he found "no objective evidence ... of any permanent injuries" (e.s.), the doctor recommended that claimant be retrained for lighter work and advised that she should avoid heavy lifting and the cold environment of her former employment. The imposition of these medical restrictions, which were, in context, attributable to the industrial injury and not temporary in nature, is inconsistent with the absence of any permanent impairment and negates the deputy's conclusion in this regard. 1
After claimant attained maximum medical improvement she requested alternative medical care, thereafter specifying that she desired chiropractic treatment. Although other medical care was authorized claimant was not provided with a chiropractor as requested and she obtained such treatment on her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Closet Maid v. Sykes, 1D98-660.
...with other testimony of the same witness. Above All Drywall v. Shearer, 651 So.2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), Jackson v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 520 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Dr. Kaplan's testimony concerning "major contributing cause" was confusing, contradictory, and subject to differ......
-
Robinson v. Shands Teaching Hosp.
...found to be reasonable and necessary, following Chase v. Henkel & McCoy, 562 So.2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA1990)); Jackson v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 520 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA1988) (employer and carrier, while authorizing other forms of medical care, failed to authorize chiropractic care as re......
-
Borges v. Osceola Farms Co.
...Sec. 440.13(2), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1990); Chase v. Henkel & McCoy, 562 So.2d 831, 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Jackson v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 520 So.2d 50, 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Moreover, the authorization of neurological or orthopedic care does not satisfy the E/C's obligation to authori......
-
Parker v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, CO-OP and N
...her earlier determination that the claimant had reached MMI with no PI and no physical restrictions. See Jackson v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 520 So.2d 50, 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (imposition of medical restrictions that are not temporary in nature is inconsistent with a finding of no Becau......