BOB'S BARRICADES, INC., AND RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANK M. CATALANO, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a workers' compensation wage loss award because the claimant failed to establish that his unemployment resulted from the compensable back injury rather than his subsequent termination for unrelated reasons.
Wage loss benefits cannot be awarded when there is no competent substantial evidence that the wage loss resulted from the compensable injury.
[1] Wage loss benefits in workers' compensation are not recoverable absent competent substantial evidence that the wage loss resulted from the compensable injury rather than…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant sustained a compensable back injury on September 28, 1979, underwent surgery, returned to work performing the same job at the same wages, and…
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
THOMPSON, Judge.
The employer/carrier (E/C) challenge a workers’ compensation order, contending in part that the deputy commissioner (deputy) erred by awarding claimant wage loss benefits. We agree and reverse.
Claimant sustained a compensable back injury on September 28, 1979, for which he was subsequently required to undergo surgery. Claimant testified that after returning to work, he performed the same job, worked the same hours, and made the same wages as he had prior to the accident. After working for more than a year claimant was fired.
Claimant contends that he was fired because of his claim for workers’ compensation benefits. E/C contend that claimant was fired because of his attitude. Subsequent to his termination, claimant conducted a job search. He located employment approximately five weeks after being terminated by E/C. The deputy awarded claimant wage loss benefits for the period of time he was unemployed.
Claimant’s assertion regarding why he was fired does not form a basis for the award of wage loss benefits. There is no competent substantial evidence that the asserted wage loss was the result of the compensable injury. Accordingly, the award of wage loss benefits is reversed. Our resolution of this issue obviates the need to address the remaining points raised by E/C.
REVERSED.
WIGGINTON, J., concurs.
JOANOS, J., dissents.
JOANOS, Judge,
dissenting.
There was evidence that claimant’s physician recommended a change in employment because of the injury. There was further evidence that the claimant was fired when the employer was told of the recommendation. In my opinion, that evidence was sufficient to support the decision of the Deputy Commissioner that claimant was entitled to wage loss benefits for the period between the claimant’s firing and his finding employment in a job that he could properly perform. The Deputy Commissioner could properly conclude that this loss of wages resulted from the injury sustained. I, therefore, dissent from the majority opinion.