W.R. Grace & Co. v. Shaw, BJ-396

• Decision Date: 13 November 1986
• Docket Number: No. BJ-396,BJ-396
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Parties: 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2379 W.R. GRACE & COMPANY and CNA Insurance Group, Appellants, v. Mary A. SHAW, Appellee.

Page 941

497 So.2d 941

11 Fla. L. Weekly 2379

W.R. GRACE & COMPANY and CNA Insurance Group, Appellants, v. Mary A. SHAW, Appellee.

No. BJ-396.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

First District.

Nov. 13, 1986.

Brian B. Bolton of Zimmerman, Shuffield, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A., Orlando, for appellants.

H. Guy Smith, C. Kenneth Stuart, Jr., and Ronald A. Herring of H. Guy Smith, P.A., Lakeland, for appellee.

MILLS, Judge.

This is a workers' compensation appeal from an order finding permanent partial impairment and granting wage loss benefits. W.R. Grace & Company, the employer herein, contends the instant record does not contain sufficient, competent and substantial evidence to support these awards. We disagree and affirm.

On 4 November 1985, an order was entered on Shaw's claim, finding she had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) as of 18 July 1984, and she had sustained a 15% permanent psychiatric impairment from her on-the-job injury. The order further found Shaw had conducted a good faith job search and awarded to her wage-loss benefits for the months of August 1984, March 1985, and July 1985; three weeks in each of the months of April and May 1985; two weeks in October of 1984; and one week in each of the months of September 1984, February 1985 and June 1985.

The order's finding of permanent impairment was based in large part on the testimony of Dr. Robin Wooten, a psychiatrist who had treated Shaw since March of 1982. The employer argues that Dr. Wooten gave inconsistent and equivocating testimony, and his opinion on the issue of impairment must be considered speculative. We disagree.

Dr. Wooten repeatedly stated during both of his depositions that Shaw's psychiatric problems were based on her physical symptoms, and that if her physical condition should improve then her psychological state should also improve. However, two neurologists, whose depositions are contained in the instant record, both agreed that Shaw has no impairment on a neurological basis. In other words, there will be no more improvement in her physical condition from a neurological standpoint. The deputy commissioner, having competent evidence before him that Shaw's physical condition would not improve, properly viewed Dr. Wooten's testimony as supporting a finding of permanent psychological impairment. Moreover, Dr. Wooten did state unequivocally that Shaw had a disability rating of 15% under the AMA guides, and would not be able to function productively if...