RCI SE Services Division/Aetna Casualty & Surety v. Sisson
Docket: No. BM-415
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; February 15, 1988; Florida; State Appellate Court
The employer and carrier (E/C) appeal a workers’ compensation order that awarded the claimant, a 26-year-old welder, various benefits following a workplace injury. The claimant previously sustained a head injury in 1982 in New York, resulting in severe bilateral sensorineural hearing loss requiring hearing aids. The current claim, filed after he transferred to Florida in 1984, alleges an aggravation of this condition due to loud noise exposure at work. The E/C denied the claim, attributing the increased impairment to the prior injury. During the hearing, an audiologist testified that the claimant experienced significant hearing loss, attributing it to his work environment. The E/C objected to this testimony, arguing that the audiologist lacked the qualifications to provide such opinions. The deputy commissioner admitted the testimony and ultimately found the hearing loss compensable, awarding benefits. The appeal centers on whether the deputy erred in allowing the audiologist's testimony and whether there was sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the claimant’s hearing loss and workplace noise exposure. The record reveals limited evidence supporting the audiologist's qualifications, and he himself acknowledged his role was primarily focused on hearing aid fitting rather than medical assessments. McCombs, a licensed hearing aid audiologist in Florida, was permitted to testify about the claimant's increased hearing impairment from August 1984 to August 1985, suggesting it exceeded what could be expected from sensorineural loss alone. He speculated that this accelerated impairment could be consistent with noise exposure at the claimant's job, but acknowledged his response was based on statistical reasoning rather than definitive evidence. McCombs clarified his role as a hearing aid dispenser, not a medical audiologist, and noted that he requires physician clearance for fitting hearing devices in cases of medical issues but not for nerve deafness, which he claimed is unresponsive to medical intervention. Despite his qualifications to measure hearing loss, the court found he lacked the competence to opine on the cause of the claimant's accelerated hearing loss. The trial court's discretion in determining expert witness qualifications was emphasized, and it was concluded that McCombs' testimony on causation was improperly admitted. The absence of competent substantial evidence linking the claimant's noise exposure to his hearing loss led to a reversal of the deputy commissioner's decision regarding compensability. The court indicated that this ruling did not prohibit all audiologists from offering such opinions but highlighted a lack of demonstrated competence in this specific case. Other issues regarding average weekly wage and penalties were not addressed due to the reversal on compensability.