ALCHAR WHOLESALE HARDWARE COMPANY AND ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
MICHAEL MASON AND DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, APPELLEES
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.
Alchar Wholesale Hardware and its insurance carrier appealed a workers' compensation decision awarding wage loss benefits to an injured employee. The court affirmed, holding that an adequate job search can be established through credible testimony without formal job search forms, and that the carrier's failure to challenge such testimony at the hearing bars later objections.
An employee can establish an adequate job search through credible testimony without submitting formal job search forms. When an employee provides prima facie evidence of a good faith job search through unchallenged testimony, and the deputy commissioner accepts it as competent and sufficient, the employer/carrier cannot later defeat the claim based solely on the absence of job search forms.
[1] A deputy commissioner's finding of an adequate job search is supported by competent substantial evidence when the claimant testifies, without contradiction, to seeking wo…
[2] A claimant's prima facie showing of a good faith job search, if accepted by the deputy commissioner, shall stand unless the employer/carrier attacks its credibility at th…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Competent substantial evidence supports the deputy commissioner's finding of an adequate job search. Appellee testified, without contradiction, that during the period in question, he sought work three to four days a week and he gave an example of his work search and the procedures he followed.”
Establishes the standard that unchallenged testimony of job search efforts, even if limited in examples, can constitute competent substantial evidence supporting a finding of adequate search.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMason, an injured employee, sought wage loss benefits from March 16, 1983 forward. Mason testified that he searched for work three to four days per we…
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 Job Search Adequacy cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellants, employer/carrier, appeal that portion of the deputy commissioner’s order awarding wage loss benefits to appellee from March 16, 1983 and continuing. We affirm.
Employer/carrier contend that the deputy commissioner erred in awarding wage loss benefits on the basis of the evidence in the record because appellee’s job search was inadequate and appellee failed to cooperate with the carrier by completing and submitting job search forms. Competent substantial evidence supports the deputy commissioner’s finding of an adequate job search. Appellee testified, without contradiction, that during the period in question, he sought work three to four days a week and he gave an example of his work search and the procedures he followed. Employer/carrier did not contest that testi mony upon cross-examination or rebuttal. The record is void of employer/carrier examining appellee as to his job'search effort. Unless the employer/carrier attacks the credibility of such a prima facie showing at the hearing, it shall stand, if accepted by the deputy commissioner. Under these circumstances, where otherwise repetitive testimony is given by limited examples and without challenge, then it shall be deemed sufficient to establish a basis for a good faith job search, if again, that testimony is deemed competent and accepted as sufficient by the deputy commissioner. The main thrust of employer/earrier’s opposition to entitlement to wage loss benefits is appellee’s failure to file job search forms. However, this Court has visited that question previously in Clemmons v. Carroll, 438 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), declaring:
As a practical matter it would be wise for the careful claimant’s attorney to anticipate the employer/carrier’s need for work search information and supply it along with the request form. This would prevent unnecessary delays in cases where benefits are clearly due and in cases where the employer/carrier intends to controvert the request, the Claimant can take immediate steps to bring the matter before the deputy commissioner for determination. However, the law as interpreted by the First District Court of Appeal in Ardmore Farms probably does not require such a form to be filed. Therefore, if the work search information is not attached to the request for wage-loss benefits and the claimant has in fact conducted a good faith work search, the employer/carrier cannot escape liability for payment of such benefits based merely on the fact that such information was not included in the request. ...
AFFIRMED.
SHIVERS, J., concurs.
MILLS, J., dissents with written opinion.
MILLS, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent. I would reverse.
Mason’s job search was inadequate. It was neither a diligent nor a good faith search. He failed to produce a list of the employers he contacted and he failed to give the reasons he was not hired.
The only evidence offered by Mason was that he had looked for work at a construction company and had reviewed some employment ads in a newspaper. He presented no evidence to show that he attempted to comply with the search requirements required by Walton v. Alco Distributors, Inc., 434 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
In my judgment, if the self-executing intent of the new workers’ compensation act is to be fulfilled, a claimant seeking wage loss benefits must expeditiously file job search forms when requested by the employer / carrier.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Couture Fashions, Inc. v. Edda Romay and Division of Workers' Compensation, 461 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…od faith work search has been made will not be excused on grounds that the claimant can no longer remember the names of the employers she contacted and the approximate dates the contacts were made. Compare Alchar Wholesale Hardware Company v. Mason, 452 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), wherein this court held that the claimant had no obligation to file written job search forms as requested by the carrier, but nonetheless remained under an obligation to adduce competent and substantial evidence that a good fait…
-
Paradyne Corp. & Crum & Forster v. Selmer, 527 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…total disability and wage-loss benefits, costs and interest. See Rodriguez v. Dade County School Board, 511 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Rhaney v. Dobbs House, Inc., 415 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Alckar Wholesale Hardware Company v. Mason, 452 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). However, in regard to the wage-loss benefits, we agree with the employer/carrier that claimant voluntarily limited her income by failing to accept the job offered by the employer. Bare complaints of pain and inability to work ar…
-
Koger v. Sheraton INN & Ina/Aetna & Tony's Rest. & Reliance Ins. Co., 527 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…ployment because of at least one of her injuries and resultant disability. Thus, the required causal connection was sufficiently demonstrated. As the E/C did not adequately challenge claimant’s job search, Alchar Wholesale Hardware Company v. Mason, 452 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), and as the deputy found that claimant had not voluntarily limited her income, we must reverse the order denying the claim for permanent total disability benefits and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this…
Authorities Cited
- Angus Lee Clemmons v. C.A. Carroll & United States Fid. & Guar., 438 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Walton v. Alco Distribs., Inc., 434 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Dugan v. Dugan, 434 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)