CITY OF MIAMI, APPELLANT,
v.
SAMUEL SUMMERS, 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 First District Court of Appeal upheld the deputy commissioner's finding that the claimant suffered a compensable industrial accident, but reversed the award of temporary partial disability benefits for the period after the claimant returned to work in August 1980, finding no medical evidence supporting continued partial disability.
The finding of a compensable industrial accident on June 27, 1980, is supported by competent substantial evidence and is affirmed. However, the finding that the claimant was entitled to temporary partial disability payments after August 1980 is not supported by competent substantial evidence and is reversed, as there was no medical evidence of partial disability after the claimant returned to work.
[1] A finding of compensable industrial accident is supported by competent substantial evidence if the record contains such evidence.
[2] Temporary partial disability payments are not warranted for periods after a claimant has been released to return to work and has done so, even if subsequent termination o…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The deputy commissioner's finding that claimant suffered a compensable industrial [*12] accident on June 27, 1980, is supported by competent substantial evidence, but his finding that claimant was entitled to temporary partial disability payments up until and through the date of the final hearing, October 15, 1981, is not.”
Establishes the court's holding on the two main issues—one finding upheld, one reversed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant suffered an industrial accident on June 27, 1980. Medical reports and testimony showed the claimant was released to return to work and di…
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 Temporary Partial Disability Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this worker’s compensation case the employer/carrier challenge the deputy commissioner’s findings, arguing that they are not based on competent substantial evidence. We agree in part and reverse in part.
The deputy commissioner’s finding that claimant suffered a compensable industrial accident on June 27, 1980, is supported by competent substantial evidence, but his finding that claimant was entitled to temporary partial disability payments up until and through the date of the final hearing, October 15, 1981, is not. The medical reports introduced and the claimant’s testimony show that claimant was released to return to work, able to return to work, and did return to work in August of 1980. The fact that his employment was subsequently terminated for reasons unrelated to his industrial injuries is immaterial, as is the fact that he was unable to find employment following his discharge.1 There was no medical evidence that the claimant was partially disabled after August of 1980.2 While the claimant testified that he continued to have pain as a result of his injury, he did not testify that this pain prevented him from working. The award of temporary partial disability benefits for the period after the claimant returned to work is reversed.3
In all other respects the deputy commissioner’s order is affirmed. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
LARRY G. SMITH, JOANOS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . The claimant testified that following his discharge he sought “light work.” It is clear, however, that for a number of years prior to his industrial accident, for reasons unrelated to the accident, he had been performing “light duty” for the employer. There is no indication in the record that the restrictions on his job search were caused by the accident.
. In fact, no medical evidence was introduced relating to the period of time between August 14, 1980, and the date of the final hearing, October 15, 1981.
.Cf. Holiday Care Center v. Scriven, 418 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), 7 FLW 1644 (opinion filed August 2, 1982), which allowed recovery (under Section 440.15(4), temporary partial disability) for temporary wage loss suffered by an employee after termination of temporary total disability, upon being medically discharged as able to work, during the period in which she was still recovering from her injury and conscientiously but unsuccessfully seeking employment.