Taylor v. Dick Carroll Goodyear
| Decision Date | 25 January 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-2589,92-2589 |
| Citation | 630 So.2d 1222 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D221 Stephen W. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. DICK CARROLL GOODYEAR and Claims Center, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Enrique Escarraz III, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Melanie T. Cease, Matusek, McKnight & Jaspers, St. Petersburg, for appellees.
The claimant, Stephen W. Taylor, appeals a final compensation order denying benefits. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
The claimant was involved in a traffic accident on March 12, 1990, while on an errand for the employer, Dick Carroll Goodyear. He was taken to Mease Hospital, where he was x-rayed and released. The claimant experienced back problems and had the first of several office visits with Dr. Beard, a chiropractor, on March 15, 1990. Dr. Beard told him not to return to work. He was scheduled to return to Dr. Beard on Monday, March 26, 1990.
On Saturday, March 24, 1990, the claimant fell from his bicycle and incurred serious injuries. The claimant did not remember falling from his bicycle, but assumed he had blacked out for lack of a better explanation as to the cause of the bicycle accident. The claimant testified that he had "blacked out" for a few seconds at the time of the automobile accident, after his head hit the rear window of the truck he was driving, and that he had experienced a dizzy spell earlier on March 24, 1990, while sailing. The claimant asserted that the loss of consciousness while riding his bicycle was due to the initial injuries sustained in the industrial accident on March 12, 1990.
The claimant sought temporary, total disability (TTD from March 25, 1990 through October 22, 1990, payment of outstanding medical bills, and continued treatment by Dr. Beard. The employer and carrier (E/C defended on the ground that the claimant's continuing injuries and disability were not the result of the March 12, 1990 industrial accident, but were instead the result of the subsequent intervening bicycle accident which was not compensable. The E/C also argued that the claimant was not entitled to receive TTD benefits because he had been released to work, full duty, on March 26, 1990 and that Dr. Beard was not an authorized treating physician.
The judge of compensation claims (JCC issued an order denying benefits. The JCC concluded that the claimant's syncopal episodes and other current physical problems are not related to the March 12, 1990 accident, citing the opinion of Dr. Greenberg. The JCC noted that Dr. Beard would have released the claimant to return to work on March 26, 1990 but for the unrelated intervening bicycle accident and that the claimant failed to establish that he conducted a good faith job search from that time to the present. The JCC also accepted the opinion of Dr. Greenberg that future chiropractic care is not medically reasonable or necessary.
We reject the claimant's argument that the compensation order must be reversed because the JCC erred by not entering an order until more than one year after the hearing, greatly exceeding the 30 days set forth in section 440.25(3(d, Florida Statutes. "[R]eversal for a de novo hearing is ordinarily required only if the factual findings in the order were primarily dependent on the superior vantage point of the trier of fact, for example, when an issue is determined solely on a claimant's credibility." Parker v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 595 So.2d 1022, 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992. Reversal for a de novo hearing may be required when "the time delay between the final hearing and the order was so long, and the evidentiary basis for fact findings so dependent upon live testimony, witness demeanor or other hearing-level advantages, that the order cannot adequately be tested from the record alone, so that the interests of justice require a new hearing." Albertson's, Inc. v. Walter, 570 So.2d 1018, 1019-20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990, quoting Scottie-Craft Boat Corp. v. Smith, 336 So.2d 1150, 1151 (Fla.1976 (England, J., concurring.
Although the order in the present case was issued approximately one year after the hearing, the claimant was the only witness to testify at the hearing. The depositions of Dr. Greenberg and Dr. Beard were introduced into evidence. The order does not appear to hinge on the credibility of the claimant but, instead, on the opinions of the neurologist and the chiropractor.
The claimant asserted in a motion for rehearing that he had placed a newspaper advertisement asking any other person who had a claim pending before this particular JCC for more than six months to contact him. The motion also asserted that the chief judge of compensation claims was aware of the newspaper ad, which ran approximately two months prior to the issuance...
To continue reading
Request your trial