JUDITH STAHL, APPELLANT,
v.
MIKE GORDON'S SEAFOOD RESTAURANT, ET AL., 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.
A workers' compensation appellate court reversed a denial of wage-loss benefits where the administrative judge found non-compliance with statutory requirements for filing wage-loss reports. The court held that untimely filing of wage-loss reports does not automatically bar an otherwise valid claim absent prejudice to the employer/carrier.
The court reversed the denial, holding that late filing of wage-loss reports does not automatically bar an otherwise valid claim. The court concluded that wage-loss benefits were not properly denied merely because wage-loss reports were delayed, particularly where no prejudice to the employer/carrier is alleged or shown in the record.
[1] Untimely filing of a wage-loss report does not automatically bar an otherwise valid claim absent a showing of prejudice.
[2] A workers' compensation claimant's wage-loss benefits should not be denied solely due to delayed reporting when no prejudice to the employer/carrier is demonstrated.
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“neither § 440.185(10), nor any other provision of Chapter 440, indicates that such untimely reporting must bar an otherwise valid claim”
Establishes that statutory silence on consequences of late filing means automatic bar is improper
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant was injured and reached maximum medical improvement on March 14, 1980. She filed an initial wage-loss report on August 12, 1980, claiming wag…
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 Claim For Wage Loss Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Claimant appeals a workers’ compensation order which denied a claim for wage-loss benefits upon a finding that “there has been no compliance with the requirements of the statutes 440.19(1), 440.185(10), and 440.15(3)(b).” Claimant contends that the finding of non-compliance is not supported by material record evidence and should not preclude an otherwise valid wage-loss claim in the circumstances of this case. We agree and reverse the order appealed.
On the point in question the order contains recitations as follows, without other explanation of the apparently complex history of the claim: A prior Order was entered by the undersigned on June 13, 1980....
The claim for temporary total disability benefits from May 11,1980 to the present time, is denied since the employee reached maximum medical improvement March 14, 1980. (see paragraph 7 of Order dated 6/13/80)....
The claim for wage loss benefits is denied since there has been no compliance with the requirements of the Statute 440.19(1), 440.185(1) and 440.15(3)(b). . . .
Claimant made an initial wage-loss report on August 12, 1980, alleging wage loss between the dates of May 11,1980, and July 16, 1980. Section 440.185(10), Florida Statutes, requires a wage-loss report “within 30 days after the termination of the month for which such loss is claimed.” Claimant’s report was thus timely filed insofar as the claim related to the month of July. As to that portion of the claim which related to May and June, while the report was untimely filed, neither § 440.185(10), nor any other provision of Chapter 440, indicates that such untimely reporting must bar an otherwise valid claim. Employer/carrier has not alleged, and the record does not indicate, any prejudice resulting from the untimely reporting in this case. We conclude that, in these circumstances, wage-loss benefits were not properly denied merely because wage-loss reports were delayed. See generally, Gall Silica Mining Co. v. Sheffield, 401 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
As to the deputy’s other findings of statutory non-compliance, § 440.19(1) relates to the investigative responsibility of the Division of Workers’ Compensation, and § 440.15(3)(b) relates to wage-loss computation and eligibility. The record evidence does not indicate any non-compliance by claimant with these provisions, nor any prejudice to those activities resulting from the delay.
Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
ERVIN, WENTWORTH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deinema v. Pierpoint Condos. & Ins. Co. of N. Am., 415 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…ignificance of this failure. Nevertheless, we have held that the untimely filing of wage-loss forms does not require a denial of such benefits unless the e/c has been prejudiced because of the untimeliness. Stahl v. Mike Gordon’s Seafood Restaurant, 408 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). See also, Gall Silica Mining Co. v. Sheffield, 401 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The e/c makes no contention that it was prejudiced by such failure, and we find nothing in the record suggesting prejudice. At any event, on rem…
-
Racz v. Chennault, Inc., 418 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…“untimely filing of wage loss forms does not require a denial of such benefits unless the employer/carrier has been prejudiced because of the untimeliness.” Deinema v. Pierpoint Condominiums, supra, citing Stahl v. Mike Gordon’s Seafood Restaurant, 408 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The employer/carrier also urges affirmance of the order below on grounds “physical” as opposed to merely “psychiatric” impairment is essential for an award of permanent total disability pursuant to Section 440.15(1)(b), Florida…
-
Turner v. Rinker Materials & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 622 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…g section 440.185(10), this court has held that in the absence of any contention that the E/C was prejudiced by a worker’s untimely filing of WL forms, an untimely filing did not require denial of benefits. Stahl v. Mike Gordon’s Seafood Restaurant, 408 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). However, as we construe the new law, section 440.15(3)(b)2. is mandatory, leaving no room for such considerations as whether a party was prejudiced by the untimely filing. In other words, the new law contains a strict requiremen…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 401 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Lessie May Cooper v. State, 401 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)