Murphy v. Northeast Drywall

I concur with the majority in its disposition of all issues except those relating to whether the judge of compensation claims (JCC) erred in (1) finding that claimant, Raymond Murphy, suffered only a two percent permanent impairment (PI) as a result of his second industrial accident of June 28, 1993, and (2) denying the claim for wage loss. I would reverse and remand as to these two issues. In my judgment, the JCC misinterpreted the attending physicians’ testimony and the provisions of the Florida Guides,2 as well as pertinent Florida statutes, in ruling that Murphy had experienced only a two…