COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE CO. AND CONVALESCENT CARE, APPELLANTS,
v.
MILDRED O. HYMAN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed a workers' compensation order but reversed the award of permanent partial disability benefits based on wage earning capacity loss because the claimant failed to test her employability in the open labor market, and reversed the attorney's fee award due to insufficient findings of fact.
An award of permanent partial disability benefits based on diminution of wage earning capacity is precluded when the claimant fails to test her employability in the open labor market after reaching maximum medical improvement, and an attorney's fee award must be supported by specific findings regarding the factors considered in determining the fee amount.
[1] An award of permanent partial disability benefits based on diminution of wage earning capacity is precluded when the claimant fails to test her employability in the open…
[2] An order awarding attorney's fees in a workers' compensation case must identify the specific factors considered in determining the fee amount to satisfy appellate review…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA claimant received a workers' compensation award including permanent partial disability benefits based on wage earning capacity loss and an attorney'…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Diminution Of Wage Earning Capacity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The employer/carrier appeals, and the claimant cross-appeals, a workers’ compensation order, which we affirm except as to the award of permanent partial disability benefits based on diminution of wage earning capacity, and as to the amount of attorney’s fee awarded.
Any consideration of wage earning capacity loss in this case is precluded by the claimant’s complete failure to test her employability in the open labor market after reaching maximum medical improve ment. Exxon Co. USA v. Alexis, 370 So. 2d 1128 (Fla.1978). We further note that the order appealed is facially inadequate, in that it merely recites the various wage earning capacity loss criteria to be considered without relating such criteria to the facts of the present case. Cf., Dade County School Board v. Miller, IRC Order 2-3302 (Dec. 29, 1977). Such an order insufficiently identifies the ultimate facts necessary to show the basis of the award as required by Vargas v. Americana of Bal Harbour, 345 So. 2d 1052 (Fla.1976), and Pierce v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 279 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1973).
As to the attorney’s fee awarded, the order fails to indicate what factors were considered in determining the amount of the fee. Again, such an order fails to comport with the requirements of Vargas, supra, and Pierce, supra. Cf., Aetna Maintenance Corp. v. La Baff, 377 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
The order appealed is accordingly affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cause remanded.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Flesche v. Interstate Warehouse & U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 411 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…such that the absence of a job search is reasonable and justified. Chicken-'N'-Things v. Murray, 329 So. 2d 302 (Fla.1976); Sizemore v. Canaveral Port Authority, 332 So. 2d 23 (Fla.1976). . See, for example, Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. Hyman, 379 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), and Pantry Pride v. Gonzalez, 382 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). . See Section 440.15(3)(u), Florida Statutes (1977), providing that “disability,” means either physical impairment or diminution of wage-earning capacity, whiche…
-
Dep't OF Offender Rehab. & Div. of Risk Mgmt. v. Bertie Mae Godwin, 394 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…a.1971). On remand, if the deputy determines that the claimant is entitled to an award based on loss of wage earning capacity, he should base that award upon those ultimate facts which support such a finding. Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. Hyman, 379 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The employer also contests the deputy’s finding that the claimant’s injuries were “superimposed on a prior injury” to cause permanent total disability. Initially, we note that the deputy’s order is unclear as to his meaning in…
-
Orange Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs & Gallagher Bassett Ins. Serv. v. Hanson, 400 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…anatomical impairment. Since the order fails to sufficiently identify the ultimate facts on which the award is based, we must reverse that portion of the award and remand for a more adequate explanation. See Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. Hyman, 379 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The employer/carrier also contends that the deputy’s assessment of penalties for its failure to “timely” accept permanent disability was in error. We agree. Section 440.20(5), Florida Statutes (1979), provides for an award of…
Authorities Cited
- Pierce v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 279 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1973)
- Exxon Co. v. Alexis, 370 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 1978)
- Vargas v. Americana OF BAL Harbour, 345 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 1976)
- AETNA Maint. Corp. & State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. la Baff, 377 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)