Case Name: William C. LUEDKE, Appellant, v. PLAY SPACE SERVICES and Pinnacle Assurance Corporation, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2008-01-07
Citations: 971 So. 2d 261
Docket Number: No. 1D06-6267
Parties: William C. LUEDKE, Appellant, v. PLAY SPACE SERVICES and Pinnacle Assurance Corporation, Appellees.
Judges: BARFIELD and BENTON, JJ., concur; BROWNING, C.J., dissents with separate opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 971
Pages: 261–263

Head Matter:
William C. LUEDKE, Appellant, v. PLAY SPACE SERVICES and Pinnacle Assurance Corporation, Appellees.
No. 1D06-6267.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Jan. 7, 2008.
Merette L. Oweis of Smith, Feddeler, Smith & Miles, P.A., Lakeland, Susan W. Fox of Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Tampa and Wendy S. Loquasto of Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Daniel T. Jaffe of Rissman, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
"We find the denial of PTD [permanent total disability] benefits is supported by competent and substantial evidence, and thus we affirm that denial. See Chavarria v. Selugal Clothing, Inc., 840 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)." McCurdy v. City of Hialeah, 949 So.2d 1140, 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). At issue below was whether "[t]he cause of the injury could not be identified without a medical opinion." § 440.185(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004). "The parties agree that whether the cause of the injury could be identified without a medical opinion is a factual determination." Polk County Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Ross, 911 So.2d 854, 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
In finding that the cause of Mr. Luedke's injury could be identified without a medical opinion, the judge of compensation claims noted that Mr. Luedke admitted that, earlier in his employment with the employer, when he had pain in his neck after putting in a full day of work, he associated the pain with the work he had done that day. The judge of compensation claims concluded that claimant's testimony, "taken as a whole, is that he was having intermittent neck and upper extremity symptoms, which varied with the amount and type of work he performed."
The judge of compensation claims rejected the claimant's assertion that he did not know his neck and upper extremities hurt or were injured as a result of work activities. This was a credibility determination within the judge's province. The finding that pain in the neck of the kind described by the claimant was directly recognizable, even to a lay person, as related to heavy work activity is supported by the record. Claimant presented no evidence that the type of symptoms he suffered could have been a result of his spina bifida condition or that he suffered from any other condition that required a medical opinion to ascertain whether the work caused his neck pain.
Affirmed.
BARFIELD and BENTON, JJ., concur; BROWNING, C.J., dissents with separate opinion.