R.J. NICOLLI PAINTING CO., INC., AND CNA INSURANCE GROUP, APPELLANTS,
v.
EDWARD POTTS, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Wage Loss Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
In this appeal from a workers’ compensation order, appellants argue that they should not be required to pay wage loss benefits when claimant restricts his work search to union jobs only. We agree and reverse the deputy commissioner’s order. Claimant’s restriction of his work search to union jobs only precludes an award of wage loss benefits, as an award of compensation requires a claimant to show that he has tested his employability in the open labor market after reaching maximum medical improvement. Exxon Co. v. Alexis, 370 So. 2d 1128, 1132 (Fla.1978). We are not persuaded by claimant’s argument that the limited work search be excused due to union threats of fines for acceptance of non-union jobs. Any infringement of claimant’s rights resulted from union action and claimant’s acceptance of its policy in refusing non-union employment commensurate with his abilities. Griffin v. Parrish Construction & Door Service, 409 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Accordingly, the deputy commissioner’s order is REVERSED.
SHIVERS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
I.A.T.S.E. & Claims Ctr. v. Nesselroad, 534 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…to make a work search within this claimant’s physical limitations. Lakeland Construction Company v. Flatt, 433 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). A work search limited to union employment is insufficient. R.J. Nicolli Painting Company, Inc. v. Potts, 447 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). As to claimant’s part-time job, finding and holding a full-time job generally excuses a claimant from a work search, Cod v. Fuchs Baking Company, 507 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), Stahl v. Southeastern X-Ray Company, 447 So. 2…
-
Alan W. Smith Co. & Hewitt v. Garner, 501 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…erefore respectfully disagree with this court’s invasion of the deputy’s function in the contextual analysis of medical testimony on permanent physical impairment, thus precluding future wage loss claims, . R.J. Nicolli Painting Co., Inc. v. Potts, 447 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). . Whether or not the degree of impairment was correctly rated, with reference to orthopedic rather than AMA standards, would provide no basis for reversal under prior decisions. Trindade v. Abbey Road Beef ‘N Booze, 443 So. 2d…
Authorities Cited
- Exxon Co. v. Alexis, 370 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 1978)
- Alvie Lee Griffin v. Parrish Constr. & Door Serv. & Kemper Ins. Co., 409 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)