Shop & Go, Inc. v. Hart, 87-2083
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Citation | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 223,537 So.2d 667 |
| Decision Date | 18 January 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-2083,87-2083 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 223 SHOP & GO, INC. and GAB Business Services, Appellants, v. Naomi J. HART, Appellee. |
Page 667
v.
Naomi J. HART, Appellee.
First District.
David J. Williams, of Lane, Trohn, Clarke, Bertrand & Williams, Lakeland, for appellants.
L. Mark Kaylor, of Kaylor & Kaylor, Winter Haven, and Bill McCabe, of Shepherd, McCabe & Cooley, Longwood, for appellee.
SHIVERS, Judge.
The employer/carrier (E/C) in this workers' compensation case appeal an order entered by the deputy commissioner (DC) and raise three arguments: (1) that the DC's finding of permanent impairment was not supported by competent substantial evidence; (2) that the DC's finding of date of maximum medical improvement (MMI) was not supported by competent substantial evidence; and (3) that the DC erred in ordering an orthopedic evaluation of the claimant. We affirm in part, reverse, and remand.
Following the industrial accident in this case, the claimant was examined by three different physicians--Dr. Sharpe (her treating physician), and Drs. Arey and Carifi (general surgeons to whom the claimant was referred by Dr. Sharpe). Of these three physicians, Dr. Sharpe alone was of
Page 668
the opinion that the claimant had sustained a permanent impairment. According to Sharpe, however, the American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment did not cover the claimant's particular medical problems, and his opinions regarding permanent impairment were based on experience and on his treatment of the claimant.We find Sharpe's testimony to constitute competent substantial evidence to support the DC's finding of permanency. This court has repeatedly held that where the AMA Guides do not adequately address impairment, as in the instant case, the DC may properly rely on "a physician's qualified expert opinion, which utilizes experience in treating a claimant, and that such an opinion will suffice without reliance on a medical manual or guide." Patterson v. Wellcraft Marine, 509 So.2d 1195 at 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); United General Construction v. Cason, 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 claimant's complaints for an extended period of time (two and one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Philpot v. City of Miami, 88-1222
...on a medical manual or guide." Wilson v. Harris Corporation, 14 F.L.W. 434, 435, (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 15, 1989); Shop & Go, Inc. v. Hart, 537 So.2d 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), quoting Patterson v. Wellcraft Marine, 509 So.2d 1195, 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). See also Dayron Corp. v. Morehead, 509 ......
-
Scotty's, Inc. v. Sarandrea, 93-1547
...claimant has reached MMI is essentially a medical question and, as such, should be answered by medical experts. Shop & Go, Inc. v. Hart, 537 So.2d 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Jackson Page 123 v. Dade County School Board, 454 So.2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The JCC must offer a sufficient reason......
-
Kilbourne & Sons v. Kilbourne, 93-3796
...capacity, which is a mixed question involving medical and other evidence, including the claimant's own testimony. Shop & Go, Inc. v. Hart, 537 So.2d 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) Further, the determination that MMI has been achieved should ordinarily be based upon a clear, explicit expression of ......
-
Southeast Recycling v. Cottongim
...other modalities of treatment--was not tried by consent of the parties. MMI is essentially a medical question. Shop & Go, Inc. v. Hart, 537 So.2d 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The medical evidence in this case did not suggest a need for alternative methods of treatment. 2 The only medical Page 1......