Moore v. Florida Baptist Children’s Homes / Amtrust
JCC Newman (Tallahassee)(Matt Bennett)(5-6-21) – Denied PTD. The claimant injured her left elbow and shoulder and treated with Dr. Stephens, who eventually placed her on restrictions to include occasional lifting with the left arm up to 10 pounds in 2016. Dr. Stephens testified in 2021 that the claimant would have some functional loss associated with her injury. By 2017 the claimant moved to Pensacola, where Dr. Marshall placed her at MMI on 11/15/17 with a 0% PIR and no permanent work restrictions. The claimant testified that she looked for work in Pensacola but believed her inability to find a job had to do with her work-related injury. The claimant moved to Ecuador in January of 2020 for her husband’s missionary work. The E/C authorized the claimant to choose her own orthopedist in Ecuador, who testified she had a disorder in her rotator cuff that limited her ability to elevate her arm and functional problems with her ability to rotate her elbow. He assigned work restrictions of avoiding climbing ladders, pushing, pulling or lifting more than 10 pounds with her left arm. The claimant argued she was PTD because she was unable to locate work in Ecuador due to her physical condition, vocational limitations, lack of Spanish proficiency, limited education and lack of transferable skills. The E/C argued the claimant was not PTD and that she was actively working as part of her husband’s ministry. At trial, the claimant acknowledged that she appeared in a YouTube video to support her husband’s ministry in Ecuador, she is seen in the video doing activities that required her left arm, she held a selfie-stick in front of her body with her left arm, she held an umbrella with her left arm, she traveled in a canoe and trekked uphill on a muddy jungle path while filming on her Go-Pro camera, she sang and performed hand motions actively with her left arm. The claimant further testified regarding her extensive involvement with her husband’s ministry. The JCC found the claimant’s vocational expert’s opinions were based on inaccurate information and that the claimant was not PTD. Click here to view Order |