SOUTH MIAMI HOSPITAL AND TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
MIGDALIA FAZ, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
The court held that the deputy commissioner erred in reserving jurisdiction on wage-earning capacity loss benefits and must rule on the issue based on the existing record.
[1] A deputy commissioner lacks authority to reserve jurisdiction on an issue that is properly noticed and ripe for adjudication.
[2] A claimant's recovery for wage-earning capacity loss cannot be predicated upon such criteria absent an adequate job search or its excusal.
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 intelligenceThe employer/carrier appealed an order awarding permanent partial disability benefits, arguing the claimant failed to conduct a work search. The claim…
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 Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
[*84] MILLS, Judge.
The employer/carrier appeal and the claimant cross appeals from a deputy commissioner’s order awarding 50 percent permanent partial disability benefits based upon a physical and psychological impairment but reversing jurisdiction for the purpose of determining wage-earning capacity loss.
Four points are raised in this appeal but only one merits discussion. The employer/carrier argue the deputy erred in failing to dismiss claimant’s claim for wage-earning capacity loss since she failed to conduct a work search.
The claimant, in her cross-appeal, urges the deputy erred in reserving jurisdiction on her claim for wage-earning capacity loss because the medical evidence established that she was unable to work; therefore, no work search was needed, and the deputy should have found her permanently and totally disabled. We affirm the deputy’s order except as to the issue concerning his reservation of jurisdiction, which we reverse.
The issue of wage-loss benefits was properly before the deputy and was mature and ripe for adjudication. He therefore, should have ruled on the issue based on the evidence before him. “The deputy had no authority to reserve jurisdiction to rule on this issue, which was properly noticed and ready for adjudication.” Poole and Kent Co. v. Asbell, 394 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Coe v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, 393 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Although claimant failed to conduct a work search, there is medical evidence indicating she is unable to work. “As a matter of law, a claimant’s recovery cannot be predicated upon wage-earning capacity loss criteria absent an adequate job search or its excusal.” City of Hollywood v. Castora, 380 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
We, therefore, remand to the deputy commissioner for a finding on the record presently before him as to claimant’s wage-earning capacity loss, if any, in excess of her anatomical impairment and a finding of whether claimant’s lack of a work search is excused in this case.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S.N. Knights & Sons & the Claims Ctr. v. Martin, 533 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…original injury of July 27, 1984 or were the result of an accident or injury of September 7, 1985 or were unrelated complaints. This issue was ripe [*960] for adjudication and the deputy erred in failing to rule upon it. South Miami Hospital v. Faz, 406 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Garitson v. Rifenburg, 380 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). This cause is reversed and remanded to the deputy to conduct further proceedings, if necessary, and to rule on this issue. BOOTH, SHIVERS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- COE v. Ky. Fried Chicken & St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 393 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- City OF Hollywood & Am. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Castora, 380 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Poole & Kent Co. & Reliance Ins. Co. v. Asbell, 394 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)