United General Const. v. Cason, BF-91

Decision Date13 December 1985
Docket NumberNo. BF-91,BF-91
Citation479 So.2d 833,10 Fla. L. Weekly 2746
Parties10 Fla. L. Weekly 2746 UNITED GENERAL CONSTRUCTION and Mission Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Horace CASON, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Jack A. Langdon, P.A., Gainesville, for appellants.

Robert J. Denson, Stripling and Denson, P.A., Gainesville, for appellee.

JOANOS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a workers' compensation order in which the deputy commissioner awarded wage-loss benefits, costs, and attorney's fees to the claimant. Two issues are raised on appeal: (1) whether there was competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the deputy commissioner's finding that claimant had suffered a permanent impairment, and (2) whether there was competent substantial evidence to support the award of attorney's fees.

We affirm in part and remand for further findings as to the issue of attorney's fees.

In this case, the claimant in a worker's compensation dispute was awarded permanent impairment benefits based primarily upon a physician's testimony. The physician's opinion testimony was based upon his personal judgment of the claimant's history of subjective complaints of pain and specifically excluded consideration of the recognized medical reference guides. Thus, the first issue is whether the record supports the deputy commissioner's reliance upon this testimony or more specifically, whether the physician's testimony was competent and substantial to prove the permanency of the impairment.

We find that the record does support the deputy's finding that the claimant suffered a permanent impairment. We reaffirm our holding in Martin County School Board v. McDaniel, 465 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), that where prescribed medical rating guides do not adequately address an impairment, the deputy may properly rely upon a physician's qualified expert opinion which utilizes experience in treating the specific claimant, and experience in treating the type of impairment in question. Such an opinion will suffice without reliance on a medical manual or guide. In Martin, as in this case, the physician's opinion was particularly compelling due to the length of time spent in evaluating and monitoring the pattern of subjective symptoms.

Turning to the award of attorney's fees, Section 440.34(3), Fla.Statutes, presents a threshold which the claimant must affirmatively cross in order to recover attorney's fees. The ground upon which entitlement to attorney's fees is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Philpot v. City of Miami
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 16, 1989
    ...509 So.2d 1195, 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). See also Dayron Corp. v. Morehead, 509 So.2d 930 (Fla.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 1984), appeal dismissed, 478 So.2d 54 Although......
  • Shop & Go, Inc. v. Hart
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 18, 1989
    ...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 S......
  • Sanford v. Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • March 4, 2019
    ... ... Docket No. 3:16-cv-01578-MMH-PDBAppeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of ... 2013) ("As a general principle, a plaintiff's testimony cannot be discounted on ... ...
  • Coq v. Fuchs Baking Co.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 5, 1987
    ...465 So.2d 1235, 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (on rehearing en banc), appeal dismissed, 478 So.2d 54 (Fla.1985); United General Construction v. Cason, 479 So.2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The AMA Guidelines were inapplicable to claimant's asthmatic condition because the Guidelines establish PI for......
  • 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