DELTONA CORPORATION AND HOME INDEMNITY COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
CHARLES R. MORRIS, SR., 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 case, Deltona Corporation and its carrier appealed a wage-loss award, challenging the language of the decretal order as ambiguous and implying an open-end award. The court affirmed, holding that language requiring wage-loss payments "so long as the claimant is entitled to wage-loss benefits" is appropriate and sufficiently finite under Florida's 1979 Workers' Compensation Act.
The language is proper and entirely appropriate. Awards of wage-loss compensation benefits to be paid "so long as such benefits are proper" or "so long as claimant is entitled to such benefits" are examples of proper terminology. The disputed language is sufficiently finite as it necessarily allows for flexibility and encompasses the possibility of a determination of wage-loss on a month-by-month basis.
[1] Wage-loss benefits in workers' compensation cases may be awarded to continue so long as the claimant is entitled to such benefits, which is considered appropriate termino…
[2] An award of wage-loss benefits to be paid "to the date of hearing and continuing" is improper.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Awards of wage-loss compensation benefits to be paid "so long as such benefits are proper" or "so long as claimant is entitled to such benefits" are examples of proper terminology.”
Establishes the standard for proper language in wage-loss awards.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe accident occurred on July 14, 1980. Under the 1979 Act, requests for wage-loss benefits must be filed monthly and each claim is a separate claim. …
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 Wage Loss Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation case, the employer/carrier raises several points relating to the award of wage-loss benefits, and the claimant raises a single issue on cross-appeal challenging the wage-loss award. Only one issue regarding the language of the decretal portion of the deputy commissioner’s order requires discussion. We find the award to be supported by competent, substantial evidence and affirm on all points.
Appellant contends that paragraph one of the decretal portion of the order is ambiguous in that it implies an open-end award, rather than a specific period. The language at issue is: “1. That the employer/carrier ... shall continue to pay same [wage-loss benefits] so long as the claimant is entitled to wage-loss benefits.”
We agree with appellee that such language is customary in a workers’ compensation award and that the decretal portion of the order is entirely appropriate. Appellee cites as an example Dan’s Plumbing v. Smith, 410 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), in which this court held the claimant was entitled to wage-loss benefits effective retroactively “from November 18, 1980 through the date of the hearing and continuing so long as those benefits are proper.” Dan’s Plumbing at 942.
Appellant suggests that there is an inconsistency between Dan’s Plumbing and appellant’s authority, Exxon Co., U. S. A. v. Rodriguez, 410 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), reversing a wage-loss award based upon alleged similar language in the order as that now before us. In our opinion there is no inconsistency. The Rodriquez opinion does not quote from the deputy’s order so we do not know whether the language in dispute was deemed to imply an open-end award. The relevant portion of Rodriquez is:
The deputy’s order is ambiguous as it erroneously implies an open-end award of wage-loss compensation benefits. This deficiency in the order might have been avoided by counsel’s prompt application to the deputy. Failing such application and opportunity to correct, we must reverse this point in the order and remand for the deputy to delineate the period for which these benefits were awarded.
Rodriquez at 573.
The date of accident in this case is July 14, 1980. Under the 1979 Act, requests for wage-loss benefits must be filed monthly and each claim is a separate claim. At the time the first wage-loss benefit is paid, the carrier generally has no idea of the extent of its future liability for wage-loss benefits. There is nothing in the 1979 statute to prevent a party from requesting serial hearings to determine the appropriate benefit for each period of wage-loss. Awards of wage-loss compensation benefits to be paid “so long as such benefits are proper” or “so long as claimant is entitled to such benefits” are examples of proper terminology. An order awarding wage-loss benefits to be paid “to the date of hearing and continuing” is improper. The disputed language in the case at hand is sufficiently finite as it necessarily allows for flexibility and encompasses the possibility of a determination of a wage-loss on a month-by-month basis. See § 440.15(3)(b)1, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1980).
AFFIRMED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and ERVIN and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Regency INN v. Johnson, 422 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…ant, and therefore no possibility of prejudice to Regency by the claimant’s delay in actively seeking (for the second time) reemployment by Regency. Wage loss claims are filed and determined on a month-by-month basis. Deltona Corporation v. Morris, 418 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The failure to qualify for wage loss for one period does not bar recovery of wage loss benefits for a subsequent period. The claimant clearly demonstrated repeated requests for reemployment and an adequate job search. The burden…
-
E.B. Malone Corp. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lemuel Blaine Johnson, 425 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…claimant “is no longer temporarily and partially disabled” is sufficiently finite in that it necessarily allows for flexibility and encompasses the possibility of a determination of a wage-loss on a month-by-month basis. See Deltona Corp. v. Morris, 418 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). As we observed in Deltona Corp., “[tjhere is nothing in the 1979 statute to prevent a party from requesting serial hearings to determine the appropriate benefit for each period of wage-loss.” Id. at 1275. The cessation of the co…
-
Veterans Septic Tank Serv. v. Wallace, 445 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…ty is therefore directed to strike the word “continuing” from the order on review, and substitute in lieu thereof, the language “so long as such benefits are proper” or “so long as claimant is entitled to such benefits.” See Deltona Corp. v. Morris, 418 So. 2d 1274, 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED with directions. JOANOS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dan's Plumbing & CNA Ins. v. Smith, 410 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- The Landings, Ltd. v. Div. OF Fla. Land Sales & Condos., 410 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Exxon Co. v. Fidel Rodriguez, 410 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)