COMPUTER SCIENCES, INC. AND FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANIES, APPELLANTS,
v.
DONALD HENDRICKS, 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.
Computer Sciences and Fireman's Fund Insurance appealed a workers' compensation judge's award of temporary total and partial disability benefits to employee Hendricks. The First District Court of Appeal reversed the disability benefits awards, finding insufficient evidence that Hendricks' termination resulted from his industrial injury rather than excessive absenteeism, but affirmed awards regarding unclassified benefits and remedial treatment.
The court affirmed the awards regarding the 60-day surgical decision period, remedial treatment payment, and unclassified basis compensation. The court reversed the temporary total and partial disability benefits awards, the specific period disability awards, and the costs award, finding insufficient evidence that the claimant's work termination resulted from his injury.
[1] An award of temporary total and temporary partial disability benefits is unsupported where the claimant returned to work and performed duties satisfactorily, and absentee…
[2] An award of temporary disability benefits is reversed when the claimant testified to being capable of performing duties and actively seeking work, and the primary treatin…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“There is, in our opinion, insufficient evidence to support the award of temporary total and temporary partial disability benefits.”
Establishes the primary basis for reversal of the disability awards
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHendricks was injured in an industrial accident but returned to work and performed his duties satisfactorily as a computer operator. He was terminated…
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 Remedial Treatment cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge..
This is an appeal from an order of the judge of industrial claims awarding appel-lee temporary total and temporary partial disability benefits, costs, and further benefits on an unclassified basis up to 60 days or until appellee decides whether to undergo a spinal fusion.
Appellants raise the following points on appeal:
1. Whether the judge of industrial claims erred in finding that the claimant was temporarily and totally disabled-for any period of time?
2. Whether the judge of industrial claims erred in awarding the claimant temporary partial disability benefits for any period between September 15, 1978 and January 12, 1979? 3. Whether the judge of industrial claims erred in allowing the claimant 60 days from the entry of the order to decide whether to undergo any surgical procedure?
4. Whether the judge of industrial claims erred in ordering the employer/carrier to pay for remedial treatment that was never claimed before the judge of industrial claims?
5. Whether the judge of industrial claims erred in awarding the claimant temporary total and/or temporary partial disability benefits for specific periods of time between September 15, 1978 and January 12, 1979, and that those dates or types of disability were never claimed before the judge of industrial claims?
6. Whether the judge of industrial claims erred in ordering the employer/carrier to pay compensation to the claimant from January 12,1979, upon an unclassified basis?
7. Whether the judge of industrial claims erred in ordering the employer/carrier to pay costs without evidence of the costs being submitted?
Upon consideration of the briefs and record, we affirm the order as to points 3,4, and 6, and reverse as to points 1, 2, 5 and 7.
There is, in our opinion, insufficient evidence to support the award of temporary total and temporary partial disability benefits. Appellee returned to work following the industrial accident and continued to perform his duties satisfactorily until he was terminated based on excessive absenteeism over an eleven month period, including time prior to the accident. There is no indication that appellee’s absenteeism was a result of his accident.
Appellee testified he was capable of performing his duties as a computer operator and was actively seeking work through the unemployment office during the period of time for which the order awarded temporary disability benefits. The primary treating physilian corroborated appellee’s testimony that he was able to work. Appellee was discharged from work for reasons other than his injury, and was not working because work was unavailable. The award of temporary total and temporary partial disability benefits is therefore reversed. Curtis Robinson v. Olmos, 8 F.C.R. 131 (1973), cert. denied, 286 So. 2d 12 (Fla.1973); North American Rockwell v. Filliben, I.R.C. 2-2831 (1975); Norton v. Supreme Aluminum Products, Inc., 8 F.C.R. 6 (1973), cert. denied, 279 So,2d 873 (Fla.1973).
As to point 7, we find no evidence in the record to support the award of costs at the time the order was entered. The award is reversed and the cause remanded for the entry of an order determining costs on the basis of the record or such additional evidence as may be required.
The order is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
SHAW, J., concurs.
BOOTH, J., dissents with opinion.
BOOTH, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent. Crews v. Town of Bay Harbor Islands, 378 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Emerson Crews v. Town OF BAY Harbor Islands & Metro. Dade Cnty. Self Ins. Fund, 378 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Excavating v. Olmos, 286 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1973)
- De Diego v. Lou Joseph Lamonte, 279 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1973)