King v. Scotty's Distribution Center, 96-3234

• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM; ERVIN; ERVIN
• Citation: 699 So.2d 308
• Parties: 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2211 D.R. KING, Appellant, v. SCOTTY'S DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Appellee.
• Docket Number: No. 96-3234,96-3234
• Decision Date: 18 September 1997

Page 308

699 So.2d 308 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2211 D.R. KING, Appellant,
v.
SCOTTY'S DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Appellee. No. 96-3234. District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District. Sept. 18, 1997.

Matthew D. Valdes, Lakeland, and Bill McCabe of Shepherd, McCabe & Cooley, Longwood, for appellant.

Page 309

Robert A. LeVine of Newman, LeVine, Metzler & Shankman, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

At oral argument, counsel for appellee conceded that temporary total disability and medical benefits should be paid through June 15, 1995, the date on which the judge of compensation claims found Mr. King reached maximum medical improvement. Although the extent of permanent impairment was not itself at issue on this appeal, counsel for appellee also conceded that a ten percent permanent impairment (as arguably found by the judge of compensation claims) existed. On the basis of the confession of error, we reverse. In doing so, we expressly vacate the finding that the claimant had no work restrictions once maximum medical improvement was attained.

Reversed.

DAVIS and BENTON, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., concurs and dissents with opinion.

ERVIN, Judge, concurring and dissenting.

I concur with the majority's opinion to the extent that it reverses the award of temporary total disability (TTD) benefits and medical benefits only through March 1995 and its extension of those benefits through June 15, 1995. I also concur in the majority's reversal of the finding that claimant had no work-related restrictions once he achieved maximum medical improvement (MMI). The majority's opinion does not, however, address claimant's additional contention that he was entitled to both TTD and medical benefits until December 6, 1995. Obviously, by its approval of an MMI date of June 15, 1995, the effect of the majority's decision is to reject claimant's argument regarding a later time therefor. Because I cannot agree that competent, substantial evidence supports a determination that claimant was at overall MMI as of June 15, 1995, I respectfully dissent to this portion of the majority's opinion so holding, and I would reverse and remand for additional findings as to this issue.

Claimant suffered his industrial accident on December 15, 1994, which resulted in injuries to both his lower back and neck. Immediately after the accident, claimant began treating with Dr. Juan Ibanez, a general practitioner. Claimant complained mostly of lower back problems, and Dr. Ibanez...