J. C. PARKS, APPELLANT,
v.
DADE COUNTY WASTE DIVISION AND METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY SELF-INSURANCE FUND, APPELLEES
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.
A workers' compensation appeal addressing whether a worker should receive permanent total disability benefits and whether an employer could deduct a prior settlement payment. The court affirmed the denial of permanent total disability but reversed the employer's $4,000 setoff, finding insufficient evidence that the prior settlement constituted permanent disability payments.
The court affirmed the denial of permanent total disability because Parks failed to demonstrate an adequate work search showing that employment was closed to him in the open labor market. The court reversed the $4,000 setoff because the employer failed to prove that the prior settlement amount constituted permanent disability payments rather than temporary disability benefits.
[1] A workers' compensation claimant seeking permanent total disability benefits must demonstrate that employment is closed to them in the open labor market, which may includ…
[2] A claimant's failure to apply for available positions within their physical and mental capabilities can support a finding that their work search was inadequate to prove e…
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“Parks failed to apply for available positions within his physical and mental capabilities. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner properly found that Parks' work search was inadequate to show that employment was closed to him in the open labor market.”
Establishes that permanent total disability requires demonstrating a good faith work search and that the claimant failed this requirement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.C. Parks suffered a work injury and received a workers' compensation award for 70 percent permanent partial disability based on loss of wage earning…
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 Work Search Adequacy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from a workers’ compensation order awarding benefits based on a 70 percent permanent partial disability predicated on a loss of wage earning capacity. Claimant J.C. Parks contends that the Deputy Commissioner’s denial of permanent total disability was not supported by substantial competent evidence.
We affirm this portion of the order, as there was sufficient evidence in the record that Parks failed to apply for available positions within his physical and mental capabilities.
Thus, the Deputy Commissioner properly found that Parks’ work search was inadequate to show that employment was closed to him in the open labor market. See Mahler v. Lauderdale Lakes National Bank, 322 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1975). See also Coe v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, 393 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
The claimant also urges that the Deputy Commissioner erred in permitting the employer/carrier to deduct a lump sum of $4,000 which Parks received as part of a settlement agreement relating to a prior injury. The order found that this amount was “previously paid permanency” which the employer was entitled to set off under Section 440.15(5)(c).
However, the settlement agreement merely provided that the $4,000 was paid “for compensation, past, present, and future.” There is no evidence in the record to support the employer’s contention that the entire amount constituted permanent disability payments. Amounts received for temporary disability pursuant to a settlement agreement are not subject to deduction under Section 440.15(5)(c). Nunez v. Holiday Inn, 380 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
Accordingly, because appellee failed to prove its entitlement to a deduction under the applicable statute, we reverse that portion bf the Deputy Commissioner’s order awarding the employer/carrier a $4,000 credit.
BOOTH, SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Structural Sys., Inc. v. Worthen, 463 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…t agreement should be deemed a gratuity, insofar as the rights of the second carrier are concerned. Compensation received for temporary disability pursuant to a settlement agreement is not subject to a deduction. Parks v. Dade County Waste Division, 402 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Nevertheless, I see no reason why the first carrier, not a party to the agreement, should be barred from receiving a credit, caused by the amount claimant received by stipulation, against future compensation and medical benefits…
Authorities Cited
- Mahler v. Lauderdale Lakes Nat'l Bank, 322 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1975)
- COE v. Ky. Fried Chicken & St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 393 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Nunez v. Holiday INN & Int'l Ins. Co., 380 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)