Spring Air Mattress Co. v. Cox, AE-87

Decision Date14 May 1982
Docket NumberNo. AE-87,AE-87
Citation413 So.2d 1265
PartiesSPRING AIR MATTRESS COMPANY a/k/a Tiffany Furniture Ind. and Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., Appellants, v. Celine J. COX, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Donna L. Bergh of Walker, Buckmaster, Miller & Ketcham, Orlando, for appellants.

Scott H. Michaud of Meyers, Mooney, Adler & Hammond, Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this workers' compensation appeal, involving a claim seeking wage-loss benefits, we are called upon to determine whether the deputy erred in finding that the claimant sustained a permanent physical impairment without express reference to the American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (1977) ("Guides"), and, if not, whether that finding is adequately supported by the evidence of claimant's subjective complaints of pain to her physician. We affirm, and also set out the proper method for awarding appellate attorney's fees when the deputy has reserved jurisdiction to determine the propriety of a fee award but has not reached a determination as required by § 440.34(2), Florida Statutes (1979).

The industrial injury in this case stems from an incident in which claimant suffered immediate and severe pain in her right wrist while cutting a foam mattress with a heavy pair of scissors. Her condition, diagnosed as carpal tunnel syndrome, eventually required her to undergo surgery. Dr. Gilmer rated claimant as 5% permanently, partially disabled, stating that a permanent impairment rating based on the claimant's subjective pain complaints was entirely consistent with the requirements of Chapter 2 of the Guides.

The fact that Dr. Gilmer's testimony was based on the Guides and stemmed from his long-term treatment of the claimant as the primary treating physician makes it apparent why the deputy relied on testimony from him instead of a conflicting expert. That the deputy failed to use the magic words "based on the A.M.A. Guides" in finding a permanent physical impairment of the claimant therefore provides no grounds for relief because it is readily apparent from the record that the claimant's permanent physical impairment rating complies with the Guides. Cf., Rouse v. Wyldwood Tropical Nursery, 392 So.2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

As to appellant's second contention concerning the diagnosis of a permanent impairment by Dr. Gilmer based on the claimant's subjective complaints of pain, we find that this diagnosis falls within the parameters of Chapter 2 of the Guides. The evaluation method in this chapter requires a physician to determine the extent of loss of function due to: (a) sensory deficit, pain or discomfort and (b) loss of muscle strength. Guides, supra, at 49 (e. s.). This chapter of the Guides cites three carefully defined factors for evaluation of pain associated with nerve disorders. Id. at 49-50. It notes that "subjective complaints of pain which cannot be substantiated along these lines are not considered within the scope of this guide." Id., at 50. Implicit in this statement is the fact that subjective pain complaints which can be substantiated along the foregoing lines are considered within the scope of this portion of the Guides. Decks, Inc. of Florida v. Wright, 389 So.2d 1074, 1076 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); see also Scotty's, Inc. v. Jones, 393 So.2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Gilmer's testimony and that of claimant reveals evidence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Sunland Hospital/State of Fla. v. Garrett, AG-422
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 7, 1982
    ...Florida Statutes (1979); Decor Painting & Iowa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rohn, 401 So.2d 899 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Spring Air Mattress Co. v. Cox, 413 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Here the deputy found that claimant was physically or anatomically impaired as a result of his May 1979 back in......
  • Cabrera v. Universal Trusses, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 12, 1983
    ...that failure to use the words "based on the AMA Guides" is not a talisman to be used in denying compensation. Spring Air Mattress Co. v. Cox, 413 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We have held that a physician's failure to apply the AMA Guides renders the evaluation incompetent only as to the......
  • Tampa Bay Moving Systems, Inc. v. Frederick
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 23, 1983
    ...Guides" does not render it incompetent, and no such objection was ever stated before the deputy in this case. See Spring Air Mattress Co. v. Cox, 413 So.2d 1265 (Fla.1982); Racz v. Chennault, Inc., 418 So.2d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). On the contrary, we have held that a medical witness's opi......
  • Dixon v. Sprint-Florida, Inc., 5D00-2383.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 29, 2001
    ...in this matter, the trial court is directed to award her a reasonable fee for prosecuting this appeal. See Spring Air Mattress Co. v. Cox, 413 So.2d 1265, 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)(recognizing the provisional grant of attorney's fees to the prevailing party on ...
  • 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