Sarasota County School Board/Optacomp v. Roberson
135 So. 3d 587
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Claimant (teacher’s aide) injured her right wrist at work on October 7, 2009; required two surgeries and was given a 9% permanent impairment by orthopedic surgeon Dr. Klein.
- Claimant developed a psychiatric condition related to the physical injury; E/C initially accepted psychiatric care and placed psychiatric MMI in July 2012.
- Claimant filed for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits in August 2012; JCC awarded PTD benefits.
- E/C sought to amend defenses in Feb. 2013 to deny compensability of the psychiatric condition and argued on appeal that PTD entitlement must be shown solely via physical limitations under section 440.15(1)(b).
- JCC found the psychiatric condition remained compensable and that psychiatric limitations could be considered in assessing PTD; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether psychiatric limitations related to a compensable physical injury can be considered in PTD analysis | Roberson: psychiatric limitations tied to the wrist injury are compensable and may be considered in PTD determination | E/C: PTD entitlement must be shown solely by physical limitations per § 440.15(1)(b) | Court: Psychiatric limitations related to a compensable physical injury may be considered when awarding PTD; statute does not preclude them |
| Whether the 2003 legislative amendments changed judicial construction permitting psychiatric limitations to factor into PTD | Roberson: 2003 amendments did not express intent to limit PTD for compensable psychiatric conditions | E/C: statutory language now focuses on "physical limitation," excluding psychiatric factors | Held: Legislature limited temporary psychiatric benefits but did not limit PTD; statutory language presumed to incorporate prior case law allowing psychiatric effects of physical injury to be compensable |
| Whether vocational factors may be considered along with physical/psychiatric restrictions in PTD | Roberson: vocational factors relevant and should be combined with medical restrictions | E/C: focus should be on physical capability to perform sedentary work | Held: Vocational factors remain relevant under the current statute, consistent with pre-1994 precedent |
| Whether JCC erred in permitting E/C to amend defenses and appointing expert MA | Roberson: amendment and MA appointment proper; psychiatric compensability remains supported | E/C: sought amendment to deny psychiatric compensability | Held: JCC’s procedural rulings upheld; irony noted that E/C sought psychiatric MA while contesting those limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Public Gas Co. v. Shaw, 464 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (section 440.15(l)(b) does not preclude PTD when psychiatric disorder is related to compensable physical injury)
- Racz v. Chennault, Inc., 418 So.2d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (disability increased by traumatic neurosis from physical accident is compensable)
- McKenzie v. Mental Health Care, Inc., 43 So.3d 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (statutory scheme identifies scenarios for compensability of mental/nervous injuries; compensable instances require a physical injury)
- Ferrell Gas v. Childers, 982 So.2d 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (vocational abilities and factors may be considered with physical restrictions in PTD determinations)
- City of Hollywood v. Lombardi, 770 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 2000) (canon that legislature is presumed aware of judicial constructions when amending statutes)
AFFIRMED.