Poorman v. Muncy & Bartle Painting, No. AO-258

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtSHIVERS; BOOTH; MILLS; MILLS
Citation433 So.2d 1371
Decision Date13 July 1983
Docket NumberNo. AO-258
PartiesWayne POORMAN, Appellant, v. MUNCY & BARTLE PAINTING and Reliance Insurance Company, Appellees.

Page 1371

433 So.2d 1371
Wayne POORMAN, Appellant,
v.
MUNCY & BARTLE PAINTING and Reliance Insurance Company, Appellees.
No. AO-258.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District.
July 13, 1983.

David B. Kesler, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

John H. Thompson, IV, of Earle & Thompson, St. Petersburg, for appellees.

SHIVERS, Judge.

In this workers' compensation case, Poorman appeals the order of the deputy commissioner which denies compensability for an injury to claimant's right knee. We agree with appellant that the findings of the deputy commissioner are not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Therefore, we reverse and remand.

Poorman is 52 years old and has been a painter for 26 years. He has been employed with appellee employer for the great majority of that time, and he is now employed with the employer in a supervisory capacity. On March 26, 1979, while employed as a painter, claimant testified that he and a coworker were moving a coffee table. They lifted the table and claimant started to pivot to the right when pain hit. Claimant testified that the pain went from his shoulder down to his back, his hip, leg and right knee. He testified that his right knee "locked up."

Poorman first saw Dr. Stephens, a chiropractor, on March 27, 1979, the day after the industrial accident. Dr. Stephens' office notes from March 27, 1979, state: "Moving furniture to be able to paint--felt knee & back give way. Continued to work." Dr. Stephens treated claimant initially for the low back problem, and eventually began treating claimant for the right knee problem. Poorman also saw Dr. Wallace, an orthopedic surgeon, during June and July 1979. Dr. Wallace testified that claimant failed to give a history of knee injury and at no time made complaints relative to a knee injury resulting from the industrial accident of March 26, 1979. Dr. Wallace testified that in his opinion claimant's knee injury was not consistent with the injuries sustained in the industrial accident. Claimant also saw Dr. O'Connor, an

Page 1372

orthopedic surgeon, in August 1979. Dr. O'Connor opined that there was a causal connection between the right knee injury and the industrial accident based on his belief that claimant began complaining of the knee symptoms within a few months of the industrial accident.

The claimant was paid permanent partial disability benefits for his injury to the low back, but the employer/carrier contended that the right knee injury was not compensable due to no causal connection with the industrial accident. Poorman made a claim for Dr. O'Connor to do an arthroscopic examination of the right knee and a partial meniscectomy and for attorney's fees and costs. The deputy commissioner denied the claim, finding that the right knee injury was not causally related to the industrial accident.

The only live testimony taken by the deputy commissioner was that of claimant. Since claimant testified that his right knee "locked up" during the industrial accident, it is clear that the deputy commissioner would have found the right knee injury compensable if he had believed claimant. Although the deputy commissioner found the claimant to be a sincere, honest person, he also found claimant to be confused. Therefore, the deputy commissioner based his decision totally on the medical depositions. We note that the vantage point of this court is not inferior to that of the deputy commissioner in interpreting deposition evidence. Kelly v. Florida Atlantic University, 413 So.2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We find that the medical evidence sub judice leads to a conclusion of compensability.

Where an injury is shown, and the evidence presents a sufficiently logical explanation of a causal relationship between the accident and the subsequent injury, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 practice notes
  • Chavarria v. Selugal Clothing, Inc., No. 1D00-3467.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 3, 2003
    ...entered under chapter 440 would be by appeal to the First District Court of Appeal. 5. See, e.g., Poorman v. Muncy & Bartle Painting, 433 So.2d 1371, 1373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (characterizing as an exception to the Buro rule situations "where the reason for the finding in the order is not ap......
  • Bray v. Electronic Door-Lift, Inc., DOOR-LIF
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 20, 1989
    ...v. Lindie, 496 So.2d 168, 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) review denied, 506 So.2d 1042 (Fla.1987); Poorman v. Muncy & Bartle Painting, 433 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Erb Building Systems v. Crowe, 416 So.2d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). For the logical cause doctrine to be applicable, "the claiman......
  • Philpot v. City of Miami, No. 88-1222
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 16, 1989
    ...apparent from the record, or (2) it appears the deputy overlooked or ignored evidence in the record. Poorman v. Muncy & Bartle Painting, 433 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Moreover, a deputy may not reject uncontroverted medical testimony without a reasonable explanation therefor. For exam......
  • Lawrence v. O.B. Cannon & Sons, Inc., No. 90-1154
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 9, 1991
    ...either overlooked or ignored. Cf. Allied Parcel Delivery v. Dixon, 466 So.2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Poorman v. Muncy & Bartle Painting, 433 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In my judgment the case should be remanded to the judge for him to determine, after considering claimant's employment......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
28 cases
  • Chavarria v. Selugal Clothing, Inc., No. 1D00-3467.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 3, 2003
    ...entered under chapter 440 would be by appeal to the First District Court of Appeal. 5. See, e.g., Poorman v. Muncy & Bartle Painting, 433 So.2d 1371, 1373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (characterizing as an exception to the Buro rule situations "where the reason for the finding in the order is not ap......
  • Bray v. Electronic Door-Lift, Inc., DOOR-LIF
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 20, 1989
    ...v. Lindie, 496 So.2d 168, 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) review denied, 506 So.2d 1042 (Fla.1987); Poorman v. Muncy & Bartle Painting, 433 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Erb Building Systems v. Crowe, 416 So.2d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). For the logical cause doctrine to be applicable, "the claiman......
  • Philpot v. City of Miami, No. 88-1222
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 16, 1989
    ...apparent from the record, or (2) it appears the deputy overlooked or ignored evidence in the record. Poorman v. Muncy & Bartle Painting, 433 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Moreover, a deputy may not reject uncontroverted medical testimony without a reasonable explanation therefor. For exam......
  • Lawrence v. O.B. Cannon & Sons, Inc., No. 90-1154
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 9, 1991
    ...either overlooked or ignored. Cf. Allied Parcel Delivery v. Dixon, 466 So.2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Poorman v. Muncy & Bartle Painting, 433 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In my judgment the case should be remanded to the judge for him to determine, after considering claimant's employment......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT