CAR STOP UNLIMITED AND R. P. HEWITT & ASSOCIATES OF FLORIDA, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
JOE HERAY SALMON, 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.
Car Stop Unlimited appealed a workers' compensation order awarding total wage loss benefits to claimant Joe Heray Salmon for the period January 15, 1978 to February 14, 1980. The court affirmed, holding that an application for hearing filed within three days of the claimed wage loss period constitutes a valid claim for benefits even without use of the Division's prescribed form, provided essential statutory requirements are satisfied.
The court held that an application for hearing properly filed with essential statutory requirements constitutes a valid claim for wage loss benefits, notwithstanding the claimant's failure to use the Division's prescribed form. The informal nature of workers' compensation pleadings permits documents indicating the employee has not received compensation to function as valid claims.
[1] A paper lodged with the Commission indicating a probability that an employee has not received compensation or benefits is treated as a claim, even without formal pleading…
[2] The Florida Workers' Compensation Law is administered with informality of pleadings, and any paper indicating a potential claim can be processed as such.
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 workman's compensation law is so administered that formal pleadings ... are quite unnecessary in order to activate the question of an employee's right to compensation and other benefits under the act, and ... any paper lodged with the Commission indicating a probability that the employee has not received such compensation or benefits is treated as a "claim" and processed as such in the same manner as if it were filed with all the niceties of expert legal attention.”
Establishes the foundational principle that workers' compensation claims need not follow formal pleading requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant filed an application for hearing on February 15, 1980, requesting wage loss benefits for a stated monthly period. The application contained t…
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 Wage Loss Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from a workers’ compensation order awarding, among other things, total wage loss benefits to claimant for the period January 15, 1978, to February 14, 1980. Although we find no error in the points raised on appeal, we note disposition of a novel issue as to whether reversible error occurred in the award of wage loss benefits for the period in question, when such benefits were not included in a pending claim for other benefits filed November 19,1979, but were identified in an application for hearing filed February 15, 1980.
The application for hearing contained the names and addresses of the employer, employee and carrier, the claimant’s social security number, the date of accident, and a request “in accordance with Florida Statutes 440.15(3)(b)” for wage loss benefits in a stated amount for the monthly period in question. That application was filed within three days after the claimed monthly wage loss period. (Appellant's argument does not relate to the discrepancy between the order’s terminal date of February 14 and the February 12 date noted in the application.) Final hearing was held on July 17, 1980, following pretrial on April 24, 1980.
In A. B. Taff & Sons v. Clark, 110 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959), this court restated the well recognized rule with respect to informality of pleadings in workers’ compensation cases:
. . . The workman’s compensation law is so administered that formal pleadings .. . are quite unnecessary in order to activate the question of an employee’s right to compensation and other benefits under the act, and . . . any paper lodged with the Commission indicating a probability that the employee has not received such compensation or benefits is treated as a “claim” and processed as such in the same manner as if it were filed with all the niceties of expert legal attention. A. B. Taff & Sons, 110 So. 2d at 433.
Although extensive substantive and procedural revision of the law has occurred since that decision, our consideration of the sequence of events above recited in the light of the current statutes does not show that the procedures here in question prevented any fair opportunity for action by appellant and the Division toward which the provisions of the law and rules are directed. § 440.185(10) and § 440.19(1) and (2)(d); Rule 38F-3.10 and 3.18, State of Florida Rules and Regulations.
In accord with the rationale enunciated in Taff, we conclude that failure by claimant to utilize the specific form prescribed by the Division should not be fatal so long as essential statutory requirements respecting claimed wage loss benefits are otherwise satisfied. We therefore find that the application for hearing filed in this case was under the circumstances properly treated as a claim for the benefits in question. Our conclusion here, that a claim by any other name or form may serve the same essential purposes, does not of course address the significance of deficiencies in an alleged claim which may be prejudicial for reasons other than those asserted in this case. See Jones v. K & L Contractors, 392 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
The deputy’s order is affirmed.
BOOTH, SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ardmore Farms & Esis v. Smith, 423 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…at the self-executing nature of the workers’ compensation law requires that mere failure to comply with technical requirements in filing wage loss benefit request forms should not defeat a valid claim for such benefits, Car Stop Unlimited v. Salmon, 404 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), and that there is “nothing sacrosanct” about the particular form by which wage loss benefits are requested, Florida Erection Services, Inc. v. McDonald, 395 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). However, the claimant’s failure to repo…1 / 3
-
Herb's Exxon & Peninsular Fire Ins. Co. v. Whatmough, 487 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…claim is essential to trigger the right of the employee to any compensation or remedial treatment that the employer does not voluntarily provide, citing A.B. Taft & Sons v. Clark, 110 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). In Car Stop Unlimited v. Salmon, 404 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), it was held that although a claim did not specifically allege that claimant was seeking wage-loss benefits for a specified period of time, since the notice of hearing did refer to such benefits, the claim was properly before the…
-
Foster Wheeler Energy Grp. v. Armand Fairhurst, 405 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…d of attorney’s fees was error. The claimant’s January 15,1980 letter requesting a hearing on his request for medical benefits satisfies the requirement of a “claim” for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees. See Car Stop Unlimited, et al. v. Salmon, 404 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). AFFIRMED. BOOTH, LARRY G. SMITH, and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- A. B. Taff & Sons v. Clark, 110 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Alphonso Jones v. K & L Contractors & Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford, 392 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)