McConnaughhay, Coonrod, Weaver, Stern & Thomas, P.A.

Workers' Compensation

Claims Management, Inc. and McClanes v. Drewno

23 FLW D2351

Permanent impairment benefits and permanent total benefits cannot be awarded simultaneously. These benefits are alternative as opposed to cumulative remedies for workers' compensation injuries. See Brannon v. Tampa Tribune, 711 So.2d 97 (1st DCA 1998). Under the 1994 amendments to Section 440.09(1), F.S., a claimant is required to establish causal connection issues within a reasonable degree of medical certainty; not medical probability. Moreoever, if the injury claimed is mental or psychiatric, the claimant has the added burden of proving causal relationship by clear and convincing evidence, rather than a proponderance of the evidence. In addition, the claimant must prove that the work related injury is the major contributing cause of the claimant's subsequent injuries. The test therefore is two-fold for determining compensability of the mental or psychiatric conditions: First, causation must be established by clear and convincing medical evidence. Secondly, the accident must be shown to be the major contributing cause of the later injury. In proving the major contributing cause, there is no requirement that such proof be established by a reasonable degree of medical certainty. In other words, there is no requirement that the major contributing cause be proved solely by medical evidence. In this case, the treating physician testified that he could not determine the major contributing cause of the claimant's psychiatric problems. Court determined that "major contributing cause" is not a purely medical question but rather a judicial determination based on the totality of the evidence; that is, on both medical and lay testimony. In reviewing the facts of this case, the court determined that there was competent and substantial evidence to support the fact that the accident caused the claimant's psychiatric condition and such evidence would qualify as clear and convincing. The heightened evidentiary standards for proving causation by clear and convincing evidence did not alter appellate standards of review by an appellate court and accordingly, the court determined that there was competent and substantial evidence supporting the clear and convincing evidence standard. Notwithstanding the absence of medical testimony concerning major contributing cause, there was enough evidence of records to support the major contributing cause finding. Even though the claimant's psychiatric problems could have been caused by many reasons, there was competent and substantial evidence when considering the record evidence as a whole to conclude that the major contributing cause of the claimant's psychiatric problems was the compensable accident. Dissenting opinion.

Cases

Workers' Compensation

Claims Management, Inc. and McClanes v. Drewno