TRELLA MARTINEZ, APPELLANT,

v.

LEO MARTINEZ, JR., APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By (29 total)

• Betancourt v. Sears Roebuck & Co. & Kemper Ins. Co., 693 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
  …however, that benefits are not precluded simply because some part of the wage loss is attrib [*684] utable to a reason unrelated to the injury, such as economic factors, seasonal layoff, or discharge for good cause. Williams Roofing, Inc. v. Moore, 447 So. 2d 968, 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Johnston v. Super Food Sens., 461 So. 2d 169, 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). A claimant may still be entitled to benefits if the compensable injury left the claimant in a condition which precludes employment within his or her abi…
• Trujillo v. S. Wine & Spirits, 525 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
  …. Whether a claimant has shown a causal relationship between the injury and a change in employment status is a factual [*483] question to be determined by the deputy commissioner from competent substantial evidence. Williams Roofing, Inc. v. Moore, 447 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Based on the testimony of Dr. Moriber, the deputy commissioner found that “claimant was able to return to regular duty work on July 24,1985, without restrictions” and that claimant had not shown a causal connection between “any…
• Tampa Elec. Co. v. Bradshaw, 477 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
  …v. Scriven, 418 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Pursuant to Section 440.15(3)(b)2, Florida Statutes (1981), a claimant must show “that any wage loss claimed is the result of the compensable injury.” As we observed in Williams Roofing, Inc. v. Moore, 447 So. 2d 968, 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984): “[T]he deputy commissioner must look to the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a claimant has shown a causal relationship between the injury and the wage loss.” (e.s.) Although Dr. Homan opined that claimant…

Authorities Cited

• Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
• Holbrook v. Holbrook, 383 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)