Lemmer v. Urban Elec., Inc., No. 1D05-6098.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Per Curiam |
| Citation | 947 So.2d 1196 |
| Parties | Arron LEMMER, Appellant, v. URBAN ELECTRICAL, INC. and The Hartford, Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 25 January 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D05-6098. |
v.
URBAN ELECTRICAL, INC. and The Hartford, Appellees.
[947 So.2d 1197]
Patrick J. Deese, Melbourne; Bill McCabe, Longwood, for Appellant.
William H. Rogner of Hurley, Rogner, Miller, Cox & Waranch & Westcott, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellees.
PER CURIAM.
Claimant, Arron Lemmer, seeks review of an order of the judge of compensation claims ("JCC") in which the JCC denied each of his claims for benefits. On appeal, claimant raises five issues, only three of which merit discussion. In his first issue, claimant argues that the JCC's finding that he reached overall maximum medical improvement ("MMI") is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. In his second issue, claimant challenges the JCC's denial of his claim for temporary partial disability ("TPD") benefits. In his fifth issue, claimant contends that the JCC erred in denying his claim for attorney's fees, costs, interest, and penalties. For the reasons expressed herein, we reverse the JCC's order and remand for further proceedings.
Claimant was injured in a compensable car accident on January 14, 2003, while working for the employer, Urban Electrical, Inc., as an electrician. Claimant sought, among other things, TPD benefits for the periods between June 17, 2004, and September 6, 2004, and December 13, 2004, through August 9, 2005.* Another issue to be decided by the JCC was the correct determination of MMI. In the Final Merit Order, the JCC accepted Dr. Desai's MMI date of February 25, 2004. It is undisputed that Dr. Desai, an orthopedic surgeon, treated claimant for his compensable right knee injury. With respect to when claimant reached MMI for his compensable back condition, the JCC noted that claimant had not sought any remedial care for his back, that he had not returned to see his authorized treating physician since March 7, 2005, and that "[o]ne can only assume the claimant's condition was fairly stable, that he had neither the inclination nor the need for remedial care during that time, and had for a prolonged period of time had reached MMI."
With regard to claimant's entitlement to TPD benefits, the JCC determined that claimant failed to establish the requisite causal connection between his wage loss and his injuries and denied the claim. In support of this ruling, the JCC found in part, "For the last 1 1/2 to 2 years of his treatment, Dr. Cohen did not document any work restrictions." The JCC...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Varricchio v. St. Lucie Cnty. Clerk of Courts, No. 1D17-3229
...of whether a claimant has reached MMI is a medical question that should be answered by medical experts. Lemmer v. Urban Elec., Inc. , 947 So.2d 1196, 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). However, a JCC's reliance on a physician's opinion must be supported by the substance of that doctor's medical test......
-
Olvera v. Hernandez Constr. of SW Fla. Inc., No. 1D19-0500
...should be based on a clear, explicit expression in the medical records or medical opinion testimony." Lemmer v. Urban Elec., Inc. , 947 So. 2d 1196, 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (citing Kilbourne & Sons v. Kilbourne , 677 So. 2d 855, 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) ). See also Buttrick v. By t......
-
Benniefield v. City of Lakeland, No. 1D12–2353.
...law, the standard is de novo. See Mylock v. Champion Int'l, 906 So.2d 363, 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); see also Lemmer v. Urban Elec., Inc., 947 So.2d 1196, 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (holding JCC's finding of MMI will be affirmed if supported by CSE). The date of MMI is statutorily defined as “......
-
Ascension Benefits & Ins. Solutions of Fla. v. Robinson, CASE NO. 1D16–5853
...JCC findings under the lift of the basic rule requiring [CSE] in support of such findings."). See also Lemmer v. Urban Elec., Inc. , 947 So.2d 1196, 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (reversing JCC's denial of benefits based on findings not consistent with record). "A court abuses its disc......
-
Varricchio v. St. Lucie Cnty. Clerk of Courts, No. 1D17-3229
...of whether a claimant has reached MMI is a medical question that should be answered by medical experts. Lemmer v. Urban Elec., Inc. , 947 So.2d 1196, 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). However, a JCC's reliance on a physician's opinion must be supported by the substance of that doctor's medical test......
-
Olvera v. Hernandez Constr. of SW Fla. Inc., No. 1D19-0500
...should be based on a clear, explicit expression in the medical records or medical opinion testimony." Lemmer v. Urban Elec., Inc. , 947 So. 2d 1196, 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (citing Kilbourne & Sons v. Kilbourne , 677 So. 2d 855, 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) ). See also Buttrick v. By t......
-
Benniefield v. City of Lakeland, No. 1D12–2353.
...law, the standard is de novo. See Mylock v. Champion Int'l, 906 So.2d 363, 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); see also Lemmer v. Urban Elec., Inc., 947 So.2d 1196, 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (holding JCC's finding of MMI will be affirmed if supported by CSE). The date of MMI is statutorily defined as “......
-
Ascension Benefits & Ins. Solutions of Fla. v. Robinson, CASE NO. 1D16–5853
...JCC findings under the lift of the basic rule requiring [CSE] in support of such findings."). See also Lemmer v. Urban Elec., Inc. , 947 So.2d 1196, 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (reversing JCC's denial of benefits based on findings not consistent with record). "A court abuses its disc......