Carson v. Gaineswood Condominiums

Citations: 532 So. 2d 28; 1988 WL 93291Docket: 87-1236

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; September 13, 1988; Florida; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Michael J. Carson appeals a final workers' compensation order that denied his claims for permanent total disability (PTD) or permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits. The appeal raises two issues: whether the deputy commissioner's order is supported by substantial evidence and whether the deputy commissioner erred by failing to find Carson permanently and totally disabled. The appellate court reverses and remands for more specific findings.

Carson sustained a back injury on July 17, 1977, while employed by Gaineswood Condominiums. At that time, he had a 70% service-connected disability from the Veterans Administration due to nerve issues. From October 27, 1982, to July 2, 1984, his employer and insurance carrier recognized him as permanently and totally disabled. However, on June 25, 1984, they filed a notice to controvert, arguing that he was able to work and had no continuing disability from the accident beyond what had been compensated.

Carson, a World War II veteran, experienced severe back pain following the injury, leading to his hospitalization on July 20, 1977. His medical history included prior back issues attributed to a pilonidal cyst, but he claimed he had not experienced ongoing back pain similar to that caused by the work-related injury. Despite treatment, including a lumbar laminectomy in May 1978, he continued to suffer from severe pain and subsequently developed drop foot linked to the injury. 

After resigning from his managerial position in July 1978, Carson worked full-time at Lake City Community College until October 1978 when he was hospitalized again for back and leg pain and psychological issues. An examination by orthopedist Dr. Arthur Rehme in April 1979 revealed residual effects from spinal stenosis and previous surgery, with a permanent functional impairment of 20% of the whole body. Dr. Rehme noted that Carson's psychological problems were more severe than his physical condition.

In February 1979, the Veterans Administration raised the claimant's service-connected disability rating from 70% to 100%, retroactive to May 1978, the date of his back surgery, due to his deemed unemployability. A psychiatric evaluation in April 1981 indicated that the claimant experienced depression linked to his back injury and the associated pain, with a poor prognosis for recovery. A September 1982 report from Dr. Wright confirmed that the claimant was totally and permanently disabled due to peripheral neuropathy, radicular nerve pain, and degenerative arthritis stemming from the surgery, stating he had reached maximum medical improvement. 

Dr. Rehme, the orthopedic surgeon, noted the claimant's fluctuating condition, increasing his disability rating from 20% to 25% based on x-ray findings of arthritis related to the surgery. He advised against heavy manual labor and certain tasks related to condominium management. Dr. Cote, a Veterans Administration orthopedist who treated the claimant starting July 1985, diagnosed degenerative arthritis and disc disease, noting the claimant's ability to function varied significantly, with some days requiring bed rest due to flare-ups. 

Surveillance conducted by a private investigator captured the claimant engaging in various activities over several days in 1984 and 1987, including driving, walking, and cleaning, without visible difficulty. On August 19, 1987, a deputy commissioner concluded that the claimant failed to demonstrate any permanent impairment or total disability beyond the 25% rating assigned, rejecting all contrary medical evidence.

The deputy commissioner concluded that surveillance evidence contradicted the claimant's assertions of physical impairment, highlighting prior medical reports from the Veterans Administration Hospital that noted low back issues before the July 17, 1977, accident. Doubts were raised regarding the reliability of the claimant's testimony, particularly related to his statements concerning work with the National Security Council, which contributed to the denial of his claims for permanent total or partial disability benefits. The court is bound by the deputy's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, and will only assess whether competent, substantial evidence supports the deputy's order. If such evidence is lacking, the order may be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. While the deputy can determine witness credibility, he is not obliged to accept testimony solely based on the witness's competence. When the case involves medical issues, the deputy must provide valid reasons for rejecting unrefuted expert medical testimony. The deputy is required to substantiate his findings of material fact to justify his decisions. Previous cases illustrate that the rejection of medical opinions must be supported by evidence, particularly where the doctors were unaware of significant prior medical history that could influence their opinions.

A deputy commissioner in Walker dismissed a chiropractor's opinion linking an industrial accident to the claimant's symptoms, citing the claimant's lack of credibility based on his history. However, the court found no substantial evidence supporting the deputy's credibility determination or the rejection of all medical evidence. It referenced Curtis v. Florida Correctional Institute, emphasizing that a claimant's credibility issues do not warrant rejecting competent evidence of causation. The court reversed the deputy's decision, highlighting prior cases where isolated inaccuracies did not justify dismissing unrefuted testimony. To qualify for permanent total disability benefits, a claimant must show that an injury prevents even light, uninterrupted work and establish a causal link between the injury and disability, especially for non-observable soft-tissue injuries. In this case, the deputy based his rejection of expert medical opinions on surveillance footage from several years, which he claimed contradicted the claimant's reported physical impairment. The deputy also expressed skepticism about the claimant's Veterans Administration records and his history of multiple social security numbers. However, the court noted that the claimant's activities shown in the surveillance were consistent with his medical testimony and did not contradict the limitations described by his doctors. The claimant testified about using assistive devices based on varying levels of impairment, and the medical evidence supported his claims, despite the deputy's findings based on the surveillance footage.

Surveillance evidence shows the claimant using crutches and a cane only twice, but this is deemed insufficient to counter the established medical evidence of disability. Medical opinions regarding the claimant's physical limitations were based on objective findings and the claimant's statements, not solely on his accounts. A causal link between the claimant's July 1977 injury and his disability is confirmed, along with medical testimony indicating he can no longer fulfill the role of condominium manager. The adequacy of the claimant's job search post-recovery was not disputed on appeal. Although the deputy found a 25% permanent impairment, he concluded the claimant did not demonstrate permanent total disability and was not entitled to full benefits. The order lacked adequate justification for dismissing the unrefuted medical evidence, and the reasons for doubting the claimant's credibility were unclear. The court reversed the deputy's order and remanded the case for clarification of the rationale behind rejecting medical testimony and reconciling the claimant's statements with the surveillance activities. A dissenting opinion argued that there was sufficient evidence to support the deputy's original decision.