Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Vero Beach Care Center v. Ricks
Citations: 476 So. 2d 262; 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2248Docket: BE-267
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; September 27, 1985; Florida; State Appellate Court
The District Court of Appeal of Florida reviewed an appeal from Vero Beach Care Center and Associated Industries of Florida concerning an order from a deputy commissioner that granted Betty Ricks past and future medical treatment related to an industrial accident. The employer/carrier (E/C) argued that the order was defective as it lacked a finding of causation linking Ricks' complaints to her accident. They also claimed insufficient evidence existed to support such a finding. The court affirmed the award for past medical treatment but reversed the award for future medical treatment. Ricks, a dietary aide, suffered a compensable injury on March 8, 1982, after slipping and hitting her head. Although she initially saw Dr. Panakos, an orthopedic physician, for neck and head pain, no complaints of lower back pain were recorded during her visits. After her employment termination for unrelated reasons, Ricks sought treatment from Dr. Benitez in September 1982 for headaches and low back pain, which she dated back to July 1982, coinciding with the birth of her son. In April 1984, she consulted Dr. Susan Puls, who, after examinations and imaging tests, identified a bulging disc but could not establish causation between Ricks’ lower back pain and her industrial accident. The court found that the deputy commissioner erred by failing to provide a factual basis for causation, which is essential for the E/C's responsibility for medical costs, and noted that no substantial evidence supported such a causal relationship. The claimant has failed to prove that her medical condition was causally linked to her industrial accident due to a lack of medical evidence, as established in Holmes v. Homosassa Springs, Inc. The legal principle is that lay testimony cannot support causation findings when the medical condition is not easily observable, supported by Handy v. Golden Gem Growers, Inc. There is no evidence in this case to deviate from that principle. Consequently, the portion of the deputy's order requiring the employer/carrier (E/C) to provide future medical care is reversed, and the deputy is instructed to remove that part of the order upon remand. Conversely, the order to pay for charges incurred by Dr. Puls and Delray Community Hospital for examining the claimant is upheld, as a determination of non-causation does not negate the claimant's right to diagnostic treatment for ongoing pain complaints, as noted in Lewis v. Town and County Auto Body Shop and Barris v. Toppers of Florida, Inc. The decision is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with specific instructions. Additionally, it is noted that soft-tissue injuries, such as lower back issues, are not readily observable and cannot be evaluated by non-experts, referencing Cintas Corp. v. Price.