WALT DISNEY WORLD COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUISE MOLTER, 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.
Walt Disney World Company appeals a workers' compensation order awarding attorney's fees to a claimant's counsel for obtaining an increase in weekly benefits. The court reversed the fee award, holding that the employer was not required to investigate the claimant's concurrent employment where the claimant had a duty to disclose such employment and the employer promptly paid all claimed benefits within 21 days of notification.
The court held that attorney's fees were not warranted because the employer promptly investigated and paid the claim within 21 days of receiving notification of the concurrent employment, and the claimant had a duty to disclose the concurrent employment initially. The employer's lack of knowledge about concurrent employment does not constitute a failure to investigate when nothing put the carrier on notice that additional benefits might be due.
[1] An employer is not liable for attorney's fees when it promptly investigates and pays all benefits claimed within 21 days of receiving notice of a claim for increased comp…
[2] Attorney's fees are not awardable for an increase in workers' compensation benefits when the employer had no prior notice of the facts giving rise to the increased claim.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 claim was investigated immediately upon receipt, and all benefits claimed were paid within 21 days”
Establishes the employer's prompt response to the claim once notified
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant sustained a compensable injury while employed by Disney. At the time of injury, Disney was unaware the claimant held a second job and cal…
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 Average Weekly Wage Computation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The employer/carrier appeals a workers’ compensation order awarding fees to the claimant’s attorney for obtaining an increase in compensation benefits from $87.60 to $130.00 per week. At the time the claimant sustained her compensable injury, the employer/carrier was unaware that she was also employed at a second job and failed to include income therefrom in its computation of benefits. All other benefits were promptly paid by the employer/carrier. Seven months subsequent to the injury, after consulting an attorney, the claimant notified the employer of her concurrent employment and claimed an increased compensation rate. Within 21 days of the receipt of this claim, the employer increased the claimant’s rate and forwarded a lump sum check to her as an adjustment to benefits previously paid. All subsequent disability benefits were timely paid at the corrected rate.
The Deputy Commissioner determined that the claimant’s attorney was entitled to a fee for bringing about an increase in rate, and that the employer had failed to make an “in-depth inquiry with regard to the average weekly wage and concurrent employment.”
The employer/carrier urges that the award of attorney’s fees was erroneous because the claim was investigated immediately upon receipt, and all benefits claimed were paid within 21 days. Florida Statutes, Section 440.34(1) (1978 Supp.). We agree. This case is distinguishable from situations where the employer stands behind “a wall of willful ignorance” and fails to investigate medical facts even after being notified that benefits may be due. E. g., Davis v. Edwin M. Green, Inc., 240 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1970). The claimant has a duty to make her claim known. Here, there was nothing to put the carrier on notice that additional benefits might be due. Accordingly, the award of attorney’s fees based on additional benefits attributable to claimant’s concurrent employment is REVERSED.
BOOTH, SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
King Motor Co. & Se. Fire Ins. Co. v. Lenore Parisi, 445 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…true of a factual situation such as the one here, where the information necessary for payment of the proper amount of benefits is in the possession and control of the employer. This situation is not analogous to that in Walt Disney World v. Molter, 401 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), where a similar award of attorney’s fees was overturned by the court. In WDW, claimant’s initial benefits were erroneous because she did not inform the employer until 7 months after the injury that she had had concurrent employm…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. Edwin M. Green, Inc., 240 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1970)