SEARS TERMITE & PEST CONTROL AND MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
DEBRA A. SPEARMAN, 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.
The court addressed a disagreement regarding the award of temporary total benefits subsequent to a specific date, with a concurring justice relying on prior case law and noting a pending en banc review of a related issue concerning the employee's work search.
The concurring justice disagreed with the reversal of temporary total benefits and suggested withholding judgment until the court reconciles divergent views on the adequacy of a claimant's work search.
The case involves an appeal concerning an award of temporary total benefits. A concurring justice disagreed with the majority's reversal of these bene…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The employer/carrier appeals a workers’ compensation order awarding temporary total disability benefits since the date of the accident and continuing, payment of outstanding medical bills, remedial medical care and costs. We affirm as supported by competent substantial evidence the deputy’s finding of a causal connection between claimant’s May 1, 1980 industrial accident and her subsequent back condition. Accordingly, the award of outstanding medical bills, remedial care and treatment and costs is also affirmed.
However, the award of temporary total disability benefits subsequent to May 13,19801 must be reversed, as there was no showing of an adequate work search or competent substantial evidence excusing same. See Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. Boston, 404 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Further, although the deputy’s reservation of jurisdiction to determine claimant’s entitlement to attorney’s fees was proper, we strike as gratuitous at this time the deputy’s statement in the order that “[t]he evidence submitted to this point indicates that the employer/carrier, in bad faith, denied benefits to the claimant and she sustained economic loss.” This finding was improper, as the question of entitlement to attorney’s fees on the basis of bad faith was not specifically presented or litigated below, and a deputy “may not simply infer from general testimony that bad faith exists.” Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University v. Vestal, 399 So. 2d 1033, 1035 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
The order appealed from, as amended, is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. ERVIN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with written opinion.
ERVIN, Judge,
. On this date, the treating physician released claimant to return to light work or part-time work.
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in all facets of the majority’s opinion except that part reversing the award of temporary total benefits subsequent to May 13, 1980. As to my reasons for disagreement, I rely upon the views expressed in my dissent to Lake County Commissioners v. Walburn, 409 So. 2d 153, 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Additionally, I would note that the continuing efficacy of the majority’s opinion in Walburn, requiring that an employee prove that his work search was unsuccessful due to his disability, rather than unavailability of work, has been called into questipn by this court’s recent opinion in Regency Inn v. Johnson, -So. 2d-, no. AE-354, 7 FLW 1285 (Fla. 1st DCA, June 16,1982). Regency Inn seeks to recede from the above aspect of the Walburn opinion and is to be orally argued before this court en banc on July 21, 1982, At the very minimum, I would withhold judgment in this case as to the question of the adequacy of the claimant’s work search until the divergent views of Walburn and Regency Inn have been reconciled by the court as a whole.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gulledge v. Dion OIL Co. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 605 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…e reject Claimant’s argument on appeal that he was entitled to fees from the Carrier based on bad faith under section 440.-34(3)(b). See Teitelbaum Concrete v. Sandelier, 506 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Sears Termite & Pest Control v. Spearman, 417 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).…
-
Churchill v. DBI Servs., LLC, 361 So. 3d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)…ortion of an outstanding petition. The JCC should have reserved jurisdiction on the amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded. See Sierra v. Metro. Protective Servs., 188 So. 3d 863, 866 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Sears Termite & Pest Control v. Spearman, 417 So. 2d 292, 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We therefore reverse the order to require the JCC to determine the amount of fees for securing the payment of certain medical bills.2 Pay and Investigate As stated above, we apply a de novo standard of review to this iss…
-
Wendy's OF Brevard & Esis, Inc. v. Stickney, 436 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…ly separate hearing on the question of bad faith, we have recognized that separate hearings do occur and are proper. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University v. Vestal, 399 So. 2d 1033, 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Sears Termite & Pest Control v. Spearman, 417 So. 2d 292, 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). While it may better serve the interest of judicial economy to decide these issues at the same hearing, it is certainly not reversible error to reserve jurisdiction to later resolve them. The deputy commissioner’s order is…
Authorities Cited
- Embry-Riddle Aeronautical Univ. & the Hartford Ins. Grp. v. Vestal, 399 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Lake Cnty. Comm'rs & U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Walburn, 409 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. Roston, 404 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)