SHERATON TOWERS HOTEL, FLORIDA HOTEL-MOTEL SELF-INSURERS' FUND AND THEIR SERVICING AGENT, CORPORATE GROUP SERVICE, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
JOSE ROCHE AND STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, 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.
The court reversed an order directing an insurer to pay benefits, finding the employer had sold the business and was not the claimant's employer at the time of the accident, and the order lacked sufficient findings for estoppel or other liability.
The court held that the employer was not the claimant's employer at the time of the accident and reversed the order for benefits, remanding due to insufficient findings to apply estoppel or other bases for liability.
Claimant, hired by Moussette, was injured after Moussette sold the business to Naran and orally cancelled his workers' compensation policy with Allsta…
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 Good Faith Work Search cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sheraton Towers appeals the deputy commissioner’s order awarding wage loss benefits and penalties asserting the record reveals an insufficient evidentiary base upon which the award may be supported. We agree and reverse.
Appellee was injured while at work at the Sheraton Towers Hotel on January 28, 1980, when he injured his right hand. He was treated until he was released with a two percent (2%) permanent disability of his right hand on April 14, 1980. Appellant instructed Roche to return to work on the following day at 7:30 A.M. Although appellee asserts he attempted to return to work, he was unable to do so and did not call in for at least several hours. Roche was subsequently discharged. Roche then filed a timely request for wage loss benefits. During the following hearing, Roche testified that although he made a good faith effort to procure employment, he was unable to do so. On October 6,1980, the deputy commissioner entered an order determining Roche made a good faith but unsuccessful work search and that his inability to find employment was caused by the impairment to his hand. The deputy, therefore, awarded appellee the maximum permissible compensation rate and penalties pursuant to Section 440.20, Florida Statutes (1979).
We have reviewed the record and have determined the evidence does not demonstrate a causal relationship between appel-lee’s inability to find a job and the injury to his hand. Section 440.15(3), Florida Statutes (1979), provides for wage loss benefits only if the claimant establishes the asserted wage loss is the result of the compensable injury. Since the penalties awarded are dependent upon the validity of the underlying award, the evidence also fails to support the amount awarded pursuant to Section 440.20, Florida Statutes (1979). Accordingly, the deputy commissioner’s order rendered on October 6, 1980, is REVERSED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and JOA-NOS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Citrus Cent. & Prof'l Administrators, Inc. v. Buman Parker, 423 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…upport a finding, that claimant’s layoff had any causal connection whatsoever to his prior injury or subsequent partial disability and limitations. See, Southern Freightways v. Reed, 416 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Sheraton Towers Hotel v. Roche, 408 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Although it is possible that if the claimant had not been laid off, he would eventually have had to resign due to the pain and discomfort of his injury, to so find on the instant record would be pure speculation. Accordingly, th…