Maggard v. Simpson Motors, AU-55
| Decision Date | 12 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. AU-55,AU-55 |
| Citation | 451 So.2d 529 |
| Parties | David P. MAGGARD, Appellant, v. SIMPSON MOTORS, and South Carolina Insurance Company, c/o Crawford and Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Thomas R. Mooney and Sherry L. Davis of Meyers & Mooney, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.
Lamar D. Oxford of Dean, Ringers, Morgan & Lawton, Orlando, for appellees.
Maggard appeals from an order of the deputy commissioner denying his claim for wage loss benefits. We affirm.
At the hearing on Maggard's claim, the deputy commissioner received into evidence the deposition of Dr. Frank Field, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who began treating Maggard in October 1981. On the issue of whether Maggard had sustained any permanent physical impairment, Dr. Field offered the following opinion:
A. He came in--I thought he reached MMI on 4/14/82. I gave him a five-percent impairment and again I can't, I can't use the AMA guide on that. It's just his chronic pain. It was my assumption that he had aggravated some pre-existing degenerative changes in the middorsal. I gave him a five-percent impairment.
Q. Based on subjective complaints?
A. Yes.
The deputy commissioner denied the claim, finding that Maggard had conducted an inadequate work search and that he had no permanent physical impairment rating in accordance with the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.
On appeal, Maggard concedes that his job search was inadequate, but contends that the testimony of Dr. Field was sufficient to show that he had sustained a permanent physical impairment cognizable under the provisions of Chapter 440. We disagree.
Although we have held that medical testimony on the issue of permanent impairment need not necessarily be based on the AMA Guides, Trindade v. Abbey Road Beef 'N Booze, 443 So.2d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), we have not gone so far as to approve a permanent impairment rating based on the claimant's subjective complaints of chronic pain. We now hold that the existence and degree of permanent physical impairment must be proved by testimony based on the AMA Guides, unless such impairment cannot reasonably be determined under the criteria utilized in the Guides. In such cases, permanent impairment may be proved by testimony based on the Manual for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, as authorized by Rule 38F-3.175, Florida Administrative Code, or by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin County School Bd. v. McDaniel
...impairment may be established under other generally accepted medical criteria for determining impairment. And in Maggard v. Simpson Motors, 451 So.2d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), we Although we have held that medical testimony on the issue of permanent impairment need not necessarily be based o......
-
Shop & Go, Inc. v. Hart
...479 So.2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Martin County School Board v. McDaniel, 465 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Cf. Maggard v. Simpson Motors, 451 So.2d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). As in Martin County School Board v. McDaniel, supra, the treating physician in the instant case monitored the clai......
-
Gates Energy Products v. Wheeler, 92-394
...of Affected Body Part Due to Pain, Discomfort or Loss of Sensation. The Employer/Carrier's Bench Memorandum cites Maggard v. Simpson Motors, 451 So.2d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), for the proposition that the existence in degree of permanent physical impairment must be proved by testimony based......
-
Coca-Cola Company-Foods Div. v. Hawk, COCA-COLA
...DCA 1982), Dr. Mahan's testimony was competent to establish the requisite permanent impairment for wage loss. Cf. Maggard v. Simpson Motors, et al., 451 So.2d 529 (1984) (physician's permanent impairment rating based solely on claimant's subjective complaints of chronic pain not competent s......