RED OAK FARMS, INC., AND AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ADJUSTMENT COMPANY, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
PATRICIA LEE SCOTT, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the deputy's award of permanent total disability compensation to Scott, finding that the deputy failed to require or excuse a job search and provided insufficiently detailed findings regarding the basis for the disability award.
The court held that to qualify for permanent compensation in excess of an impairment rating, a claimant must make some effort to obtain employment within her physical limitations unless the deputy finds the claimant so physically disabled that a job search would be futile. The court also held that the deputy's findings must specifically explain the reasons for a permanent total disability determination and must expressly state whether the claimant is excused from the job search requirement and why.
[1] A claimant seeking permanent total disability compensation must demonstrate a job search after reaching maximum medical improvement, absent a finding excusing such a sear…
[2] A job search is not required to establish total loss of wage earning capacity when a claimant is found to be so physically disabled that employment efforts would be futil…
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“To qualify for permanent compensation in excess of her 15% impairment rating, Scott was required to make some effort to obtain employment within her physical limitations.”
Establishes the legal requirement for job search effort to qualify for total disability benefits beyond the impairment rating
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott reached maximum medical improvement with a 15% impairment rating and physical restrictions including no bending, lifting, stooping, or prolonged…
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 Job Search Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
The deputy awarded Scott permanent total disability compensation. The employer/carrier contend the deputy erred because there was neither evidence of a job search by Scott nor excusal of the job search by the deputy. We agree and reverse.
There is no evidence that Scott conducted a job search after reaching maximum medical improvement. To qualify for permanent compensation in excess of her 15% impairment rating, Scott was required to make some effort to obtain employment within her physical limitations. Mahler v. Lauderdale Lakes National Bank, 322 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1975); Brevard County School Board v. King, 378 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
The deputy did not find that Scott was so physically disabled as to make a job search futile or unnecessary. Under such circumstances, a job search is not required to establish total loss of wage earning capacity. Chicken ’N Things v. Murray, 329 So. 2d 302 (Fla.1976); Sizemore v. Canaveral Port Authority, 332 So. 2d 23 (Fla.1976); Caruso v. Crown Liquors, Inc., 379 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
The pertinent findings of the deputy’s order are as follows:
I find that the claimant is permanently and totally disabled. I base this finding on the claimant’s education, age, prior work experience and the physical limitations placed upon her by her treating physicians. The restrictions of no bending, lifting, stooping, prolonged sitting, standing, or walking would preclude the claimant from normal full-time employment when considered in conjunction with the other above mentioned detriments.
These findings were mere clerical reiterations of the wage earning capacity loss criteria which was condemned in Moses v. Lin Drake Farm, et al., IRC 2-3193, 11 July 1977. No further explanation was given and the order failed to specify what “the other above mentioned detriments” were.
We reverse and remand this case to the deputy for the entry of an order (1) specifying the reasons for his finding Scott permanently and totally disabled and (2) stating whether he excuses Scott from making a job search and,- if excused, the reasons why excused, both without taking further testimony.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and SHIVERS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fairchild Indus., Inc. v. Sievers, 447 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…mant from the requirement of a work search as a predicate for disability benefits. See Sizemore v. Canaveral Port Authority, 332 So. 2d 23 (Fla.1976); Chicken TV Things v. Murray, 329 So. 2d 302 (Fla.1976); see generally Red Oak Farms Inc. v. Scott, 408 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The order appealed is affirmed. MILLS, J., and McCORD, Jr. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Lone Star OF Fla. & Scott Wetzel Servs. v. Butler, 415 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…d supports the deputy’s findings that “Claimant did make a good faith job search and .. . with Claimant's restrictions and problems he is patently disabled.. .. Claimant cannot even do light work on a steady basis.” See Red Oak Farms, Inc. v. Scott, 408 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Lancaster Youth Development Center v. Waters, 381 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Caruso v. Crown Liquors, Inc., 379 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). With regard to the date of MMI, however, we agree with appellants’ argument…
Authorities Cited
- Chicken'n'things & Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Martha Murray & the Fla. Dep't of Commerce, 329 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1976)
- Mahler v. Lauderdale Lakes Nat'l Bank, 322 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1975)
- Sizemore v. Canaveral Port Auth., 332 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 1976)
- Caruso v. Crown Liquors, Inc., 379 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Fink v. Gulf Ins. Co., 378 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Brevard Cnty. Sch. Bd. & The Hartford Ins. Grp. v. King, 378 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)