Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
FAMILY DOLLAR STORES and Travelers Indemnity Company, Appellant, v. Aida HENDERSON, Appellee.
The employer and carrier appeal a workers' compensation order granting the claimant an evaluation and continuing treatment with a chiropractor, awarding temporary total disability or temporary partial disability benefits from June 12, 1997 through July 12, 1997, and ordering the payment of all of the claimant's medical bills, hospital bills and prescriptions that are related to the claim. Because the record does not support a finding of a causal connection between the claimant's employment and her injury, we reverse.
In Pyram v. Marriott International, 687 So.2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), we concluded that the 1994 amendments to Chapter 440 created a new standard of proof for workers' compensation claimants. Section 440.09(1), Florida Statutes establishes this new standard and states that “[t]he injury, its occupational cause, and any resulting manifestations or disability shall be established to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and by objective medical findings.”
In finding that the claimant's injury was causally related to her employment, the judge relied on the opinion of Dr. Jacobsen, the claimant's chiropractor. The only statement made by Dr. Jacobsen relating to causation is contained in his medical report on the claimant. In the report, Dr. Jacobsen notes that “[i]t appears that the above impression [cervical sprain/strain and lumbar sprain/strain] is secondary to the patient's injuries, occurring on 4/14/97 [while at work], and are chronic/recurrent in nature.” This opinion does not support a finding of causation under section 440.09(1), Florida Statutes. Nor is the judge's finding of causation supported by any other evidence in the record.
For these reasons, we reverse the final order awarding medical and indemnity benefits to the claimant. Because our holding is an adjudication on the merits, we need not address the evidentiary issues raised by the employer and carrier in this appeal.
Reversed.
PER CURIAM.
BOOTH, BENTON and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 98-287.
Decided: October 05, 1998
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida,First District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)