CERTIFIED GROCERS AND CORPORATE GROUP SERVICE, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
RONALD OPEL, 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 employer/carrier challenged the deputy commissioner's award of wage loss benefits and attorney's fees to an injured employee. The court reversed, finding that the employee failed to prove his wage loss resulted from his work injury rather than economic conditions, and that the attorney's fees award was premature because bad faith was not properly litigated.
The court held that Opel failed to meet his burden of proving that his wage loss resulted from his injury, as the evidence showed his unemployment was due to economic conditions rather than the injury. The court also held that the attorney's fees award was premature because bad faith was neither properly evidenced nor specifically litigated as a separate issue.
[1] A claimant seeking wage loss benefits in a workers' compensation case bears the burden of proving that the wage loss is a direct result of the work-related injury.
[2] A claimant's testimony regarding potential future inability to perform a job due to injury, without more, is insufficient to establish a causal connection between the inj…
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“Opel had the burden of proving that any wage loss claimed came about as the result of his injury. This burden he has failed to carry.”
Establishes the burden of proof requirement for wage loss causation in workers' compensation cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOpel sustained a back injury on July 31, 1980, while employed at Certified Grocers and received temporary total disability benefits before returning t…
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
MILLS, Judge.
The employer/carrier in this workers’ compensation case seeks review of the deputy commissioner’s order which awarded wage loss benefits and attorney’s fees to Opel. Because Opel failed to prove that his wage loss was the result of his injury and because the award of attorney’s fees was premature, we reverse. •
Opel sustained an injury to his back arising out of and in the course of his employment with Certified Grocers on 31 July 1980. After receiving temporary total disability (TTD) benefits for a time, he returned to work at Certified on 20 October 1980. There he continued to work until March 1981, at which time his employment was terminated.
Opel searched for work at several locations and finally was hired by Patrick Industries on 20 July 1981. He held this job until 13 November 1981, when he was laid off due to a business slowdown.
Following a hearing, the deputy commissioner awarded wage loss benefits from 18 December 1981 through 15 May 1982, reserved jurisdiction to hear a claim for TTD benefits for the period from March 1981 through July 1981, and made an award of attorney’s fees based on bad faith.
We hold that the deputy commissioner erred in awarding wage loss benefits. Opel had the burden of proving that any wage loss claimed came about as the result of his injury. This burden he has failed to carry. Opel worked not only for Certified Grocers following his injury, but for Patrick Industries as well. The evidence showed clearly that his present lack of employment is due to economic conditions rather than the injury. This is so even though Opel testified that, because of the pain resulting from his injury, he would not have been able to continue on the job at Patrick Industries much longer even if he had not been laid off. We decline to find a causal connection between Opel’s injury and his present lack of employment on the basis of such conjecture. Citrus Central v. Parker, 423 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Moreover, as Opel concedes in his brief, the award of attorney’s fees in this case was premature because no evidence was received on the issue of bad faith, nor was it specifically litigated-as a separate issue. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University v. Vestal, 399 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The bad faith issue may be addressed on remand when the deputy commissioner considers Opel’s entitlement to TTD benefits for the period from March 1981 through July 1981.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
JOANOS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Photo Elecs. Corporation/Wpec & Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Glick, 432 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…yment at pre-accident wages and the industrial accident. Regency Inn v. Johnson, 422 So. 2d 870, 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The burden is clearly on the claimant to connect the economic disruption to the industrial accident. Certified Grocers v. Opel, 430 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Citrus Central v. Parker, 423 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Regency, Inn, at 872 n. 1. The adequacy of a job search becomes relevant only after the initial burden is met, Regency Inn, at 876. The evidence in this case is tha…
-
STC/Documation & Traveler's Ins. Co. v. Burns, 521 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…7). Had the only evidence produced in the instant case been that claimant was terminated due to STC’s impending bankruptcy, reversal would be required as in Citrus Central v. Parker, 423 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) and Certified Grocers v. Opel, 430 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (reversing awards of wage loss benefits on the basis that claimant’s wage loss was due solely to economic conditions in no way related to his industrial injury)1 The DC’s finding, however, is properly based on claimant’s testimon…
-
Nicholson v. Sammons Enters., Inc., 457 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…ind that the claimant has failed to prove his entitlement to compensation benefits from August 2, 1982 through August 23, 1983, the date of this hearing. See Citrus Central v. Parker, 423 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) and Certified Grocers v. Opel, 430 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Although the claimant was earning $325.00 a week at the time he was fired, rather than his average weekly wage of $480.56, it appears that this reduction in pay was due to economic conditions. Furthermore, the claimant demonstra…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Embry-Riddle Aeronautical Univ. & the Hartford Ins. Grp. v. Vestal, 399 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Citrus Cent. & Prof'l Administrators, Inc. v. Buman Parker, 423 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)