EDWARD J. LABRECQUE, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT, 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 held that an ankle injury should be compensated as a foot injury when the statute does not specifically address ankle injuries, favoring the employee.
Claimant suffered an ankle injury in an industrial accident, and medical experts provided different disability ratings. The Judge of Industrial Claims…
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 Worker'S Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Claimant appeals a compensation award of 40% permanent disability to the foot. Cross-appellant appeals the award of attorney’s fees.
Claimant injured his right ankle in an industrial accident on May 13, 1975. Dr. Bellamy testified that claimant’s disability rating was 50% permanent impairment of the foot, 40% permanent impairment of the leg, or 35% permanent disability of the body as a whole considering his ankle injury in conjunction with a preexisting degenerative arthritis in his left hip. The JIC awarded claimant a 40% permanent disability of the leg, entitling him to 80 weeks of compensation.
Claimant urges on appeal that he was entitled to the most favorable remedy, i. e., 50% of the foot, entitling him to 87½ weeks of compensation, or 35% permanent disability of the body as a whole. We agree and reverse the order as to the 40% disability of the leg. In reviewing the record, we do not find competent, substantial evidence to support an award of 35% permanent disability of the body as a whole. However, the evidence does support the finding that the claimant sustained a permanent disability to his ankle.
It is apparent that an ankle injury could be interpreted as either a foot injury or a leg injury. Since Section 440.15(3), Florida Statutes (1973) addresses injuries for the loss of a foot or loss of a leg but makes no mention of loss of an ankle, the JIC should have awarded claimant the most favorable remedy, disability for loss of a foot. When the Workmen’s Compensation Act is susceptible of disparate interpretations, the construction most favorable to the employee shall be adopted. Farrens Tree Surgeons v. Winkles, 334 So. 2d 569 (Fla.1976).
We reverse the award as to the disability and instruct the JIC to enter an order awarding claimant a 50% permanent disability of the foot. As to all other issues, the JIC’s order is affirmed.
MILLS, C. J., and McCORD and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
King v. Lord Colony Enters. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 400 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…tion of ratings would have yielded more than the 35 weeks paid by the employer/carrier. However, claimant was entitled to the most favorable of these scheduled remedies. LaBrecque v. Florida Vocational Rehabilitation and Division of Risk Management, 380 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). In addition, it would seem incongruous to combine a rating based on total disability of the second finger with Dr. Smith’s ratings of 2% and 5% of the hand. Since the deputy did not expressly reject the opinion of Dr. Turke, cla…
-
Anstead v. COX Broad. & CNA Ins., 500 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…oyee and the other unfavorable, the interpretation more favorable to the employee will be adopted. Kerce v. Coca-Cola Company-Foods Division, 389 So. 2d 1177 (Fla.1980); LaBrecque v. Florida Vocational Rehabilitation and Division of Risk Management, 380 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). In my judgment, fairness requires the application of the above rule to the instant case. If the claimant at bar had been fortuitously injured in November or February, during the peak periods of his employer’s business practices…
-
Risco USA Corp. & Travelers Indem. Co. of Ct. v. Alexander, 91 So. 3d 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…ined: The language used in the general release “is the best evidence of the parties’ intent. When that language is clear and unambiguous, the courts cannot indulge in construction or interpretation of its plain meaning.” Hurt v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 380 So. 2d 482, 433 (Fla.1980). The general release is broad enough to cover petitions for workers’ compensation benefits when it refers to “full settlement and discharge of all claims which are, or might have been, the subject matter of the Complaint....” Id. at…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Farrens Tree Surgeons & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Winkles, 334 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1976)