GALL SILICA MINING CO. AND RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
EDWARD SHEFFIELD, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed an award of wage-loss disability benefits to an injured worker, holding that the employer/carrier failed to properly notify the worker of statutory reporting deadlines and therefore cannot forfeit benefits for untimely filing.
The court held that an injured worker does not forfeit wage-loss benefits due to failure to meet statutory reporting deadlines when the employer/carrier has not properly informed the worker of those deadlines. The statute places an explicit burden on the employer and the division to notify workers of their obligation to report claimed wage losses, and benefits cannot be forfeited based on deadlines the employer should have but did not bring to the worker's attention.
[1] An employer or carrier cannot forfeit a claimant's right to wage-loss benefits based on the claimant's failure to meet statutory reporting deadlines when the employer fai…
[2] The statutory scheme for workers' compensation wage-loss benefits places the burden on the employer to notify the worker of their obligation to report claimed wage loss.
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“Any compensable wage loss shall be reported by the employee to the carrier or self-insured employer within 30 days after the termination of the month for which such loss is claimed.”
Sets forth the statutory reporting requirement at issue in the case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSheffield suffered a back injury and was released for work with medical restrictions. The carrier sent Sheffield a form letter notifying him he might …
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 Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Chief Judge.
Employer/carrier appeal from the deputy commissioner’s order awarding claimant Sheffield workers’ compensation benefits for his back injury. We find no error in any of the points raised on appeal, and specifically reject the employer/carrier’s argument that Sheffield waived his right to wage-loss disability benefits by his failure to file a timely request for some of them under section 440.185(10), Fla. Stat. (1979).
Section 440.185(10), added by the legislature in 1979, provides in pertinent part:
Any compensable wage loss shall be reported by the employee to the carrier or self-insured employer within 30 days after the termination of the month for which such loss is claimed. The [workers’ compensation] division shall provide by rule for the reporting of wage loss by the injured worker ... to the division and may prescribe forms for such reporting. . .. The division shall require by rule that the employer inform a worker who suffers a permanent impairment of his possible entitlement to wage-loss and other benefits and of the worker’s obligation to report a claimed wage loss.
Apparently aware that claimant had been released for work with some medical restrictions, the carrier soon afterward sent him the form letter required by the workers’ compensation division under Fla. Admin. Code Rule 38F-3.17(3), .19(1), notifying claimant that he might be eligible for wage-loss benefits. The letter advised claimant that he must file a request for wage-loss benefits for each month during which he suffered wage loss due to his injury, but it did not tell him when he must file such requests to comply with § 440.-185(10). We hasten to add that the letter complied with Rules 38F-3.17(3) and .19(1); the rule, like the carrier’s letter, makes no mention of the filing deadline.
Employer/carrier argue that since section 440.185(10) contains no provision excusing failure to report wage-losses in a timely fashion, its reporting requirements are mandatory, and Sheffield has lost his benefits due to failure to comply with them. We cannot agree with this construction of the statute. The legislature very explicitly put the burden of notifying the worker of his obligation to report a claimed wage loss on the division and the employer. Despite the division’s apparent failure by rule to require a comprehensively informative notice, the self-executing compensation scheme requires the employer to advise the worker of his obligation to report a claimed wage loss, l^e decline to forfeit a claimant’s right to valuable benefits on the ground that he failed to meet statutory deadlines the employer should have brought to his attention but did not.
In this and other respects, the deputy’s order is AFFIRMED.
JOANOS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.