CUMBERLAND FARMS DAIRY, INC. ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT W. SZAJBLER, 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.
Cumberland Farms Dairy appealed a workers' compensation order awarding benefits to Robert Szajbler for a catastrophic industrial injury. The court affirmed the finding of a total loss of use but remanded for clarification regarding which body part the deputy commissioner found to have suffered the catastrophic loss.
The court affirmed that competent substantial evidence demonstrated a total loss of use of the foot as required by statute. However, the court remanded because the deputy commissioner failed to specify which body part the claimant incurred the catastrophic loss to, even though the court suspected the deputy intended to find a total loss of use to the foot.
[1] A deputy commissioner's order awarding compensation for a catastrophic loss must specify to what part of the body the claimant suffered the loss.
[2] An industrial accident can result in a catastrophic loss as defined by statute, leading to temporary total disability compensation.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The record set out competent substantial evidence to demonstrate a total loss of use of the foot as set forth in the statute and clarified by Van Eyk, supra.”
Establishes that the evidence supported the finding of catastrophic injury, fulfilling the statutory requirement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert W. Szajbler suffered an industrial accident on May 21, 1979, resulting in temporary total disability. The deputy commissioner awarded compensat…
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 Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
MASON, ERNEST E., (Ret.), Associate Judge.
This is an appeal from an order dated October 29, 1979, by Deputy Commissioner David A. Danielson. The deputy ruled that the claimant/appellee, Robert W. Szajbler, suffered an industrial accident on May 21, 1979, in which he became temporarily totally disabled due to a “catastrophic loss” as defined by Section 440.15(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1978). The deputy awarded compensation at the rate of eighty percent (80%) of the claimant’s weekly wage until he completed training or until November 21, 1979, whichever occurs first.
From this order the appellant contended that the claimant could have only suffered from a catastrophic total loss of use of either his leg or his foot based on the evidence in the record. The appellant claims that the evidence indicates that the claimant did not suffer a “total loss of use” of either his leg or foot as defined by Section 440.15(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1978). The appellant further contends that even if the claimant did suffer such a loss, the deputy’s findings are deficient, because the deputy did not specify to what part of the body the claimant incurred a catastrophic loss.
This Court recently clarified the meaning of the term “total loss of use” in Section 440.15(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1978). See Van Eyk v. R. N. Hicks Construction Co., 377 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The record set out competent substantial evidence to demonstrate a total loss of use of the foot1 as set forth in the statute and clarified by Van Eyk, supra. Therefore, we affirm as to the first point, but we agree with the appellant as to the second point. The deputy has failed to adequately specify to what part of the body the claimant has suffered a total loss of use.
We suspect that the deputy intended to find a total loss of use to the foot. However, the deputy’s order did not state this. Therefore, we must remand the order for clarification on this issue by the deputy commissioner. AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED for proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
LARRY G. SMITH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur. . Whether or not there is competent substantial evidence to sustain a finding of a total loss of use to the leg or any other part of the body, is a question we do not reach in this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Santiago v. ORR Indus., Inc., 407 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…s of use so akin to amputation as to amount to the same thing before a claimant may be entitled to catastrophic loss benefits. Van Eyk v. R. N. Hicks Construction Company, 377 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Cumberland Farms Dairy, Inc. v. Szajbler, 390 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Total loss of use in the workers’ compensation context indicates the inability to perform functions required in an industrial setting. Hicks, supra, at 794. There is undisputed evidence in the record to support an award of cata…
Authorities Cited
- VAN EYK v. R. N. Hicks Constr. Co. & Commercial Union Assurance Cos., 377 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)