Workers' Compensation
Listed below is McConnaughhay, Coonrod, Pope, Weaver & Stern, P.A.'s workers' compensation case law database. The database dates back until 1971 and includes over 5500 workers' compensation court decisions.
To view the case summaries, select one of the general topics listed below.
Martin County School Bd. v. McDaniel
465 So.2d 1235, (Fla.App 1 Dist., Sep 13, 1984)
The standard in the rule for en banc review requiring such consideration to be "necessary to maintain uniformity of decision" has been expanded effective January 1 1985 to extend to cases deemed to be of exceptional importance. This case granted en banc review because a majority of the court felt it necessary for decisional uniformity as opposed to a case of exceptional importance. (See footnote 1 in decision.)Deputy using the orthopedic manual for evaluating permanent partial disability determined a permanent impairment rating supporting wage loss benefits. Court found "medically demonstrable" evidence based on unverified subjective complaints to support permanency finding. In this case the doctor monitored the claimant's chronic complaints of pain and stiffness over an extended period of two years during which time he imposed permanent medical restrictions.It is error to base a permanent physical impairment rating to support wage loss benefits on the subjective complaints of pain by claimant. In this case there were no objective findings to support a permanent physical impairment.The question in this case concerned whether there was "medically demonstrable" findings by the doctor which supported a permanent physical impairment rating warranting an award of wage loss benefits. Differientiating between the case of Maggard v. Simpson Motors 451 So.2d 529 the court ruled that the subjective complaints in this case supported a permanent physical impairment rating. The doctor in this instance had monitored the claimant's chronic complaints of pain stiffness and other symptoms over an extended period of time and objective signs of the claimant's pain had been prevented by the medication as prescribed by the doctor. The doctor made reference to the orthopedic surgeon's manual in determining a 5% rating but did not rely on this manual.
