BAY STEEL ERECTIONS AND UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ANDREW CHUNG AND THE DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, 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.
The court reversed the deputy commissioner's order excusing the claimant from filing wage loss benefits forms, holding that while untimely filing may be excused due to carrier negligence, the filing requirement itself cannot be waived entirely because the forms are necessary to calculate accurate benefits and inform the carrier of other income sources.
While untimely filing of wage loss benefits forms may be excused due to employer/carrier negligence, the filing requirement itself cannot be waived entirely.
[1] While untimely filing of wage loss benefits forms may be excused due to employer/carrier negligence, the filing requirement itself cannot be entirely waived because the f…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“While the claimant's untimely filing of the forms may be excused due to the employer/carrier's negligence, Gall Silica Mining Co. v. Sheffield, 401 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), we see no reason based upon the record before us, to waive the filing requirement entirely.”
The court distinguishing between excusing untimely filing versus waiving the filing requirement altogether.
The claimant requested wage loss benefits forms from the carrier, but the carrier failed to send them, resulting in untimely filing of the forms for 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 Filing Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
The deputy commissioner’s order awarding claimant wage loss benefits is reversed insofar as it excuses claimant from the requirement of filing wage loss benefits forms for the period of April 30, 1980, through January 6, 1982. The evidence presented below shows that the claimant asked for “Request for Wage Loss Benefits” forms (LES Form BCL-13b (Rev. 6-79)) from the carrier, but the carrier neglected to send the forms to claimant. While the claimant’s untimely filing of the forms may be excused due to the employer/carrier’s negligence, Gall Silica Mining Co. v. Sheffield, 401 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), we see no reason based upon the record before us, to waive the filing requirement entirely. Without these wage loss benefits forms it is impossible to determine accurately the amount of wage loss benefits due unless and until the E/C are informed of the amount of wages, if any, actually earned by the claimant during the months involved. See Ardmore Farms v. Smith, 423 So. 2d 1039, 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Moreover, these forms apprise the employer/carrier of any other benefits, such as social security, received by the claimant.
In all other respects, the deputy commissioner’s award of wage loss benefits and temporary disability benefits is affirmed. Accordingly, the deputy’s order is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the cause is remanded with directions that claimant be required to complete and file wage loss benefit forms for the months which these forms were not filed.
BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morris v. Metal Indus., 491 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…ying temporary partial disability benefits is REVERSED, and the cause is REMANDED to allow claimant to submit the proper wage-loss forms for the period November 30,1983, until she returned to work in November, 1984. Cf. Bay Steel Erections v. Chung, 458 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.…
-
The OLD Cove Condo & W. Am. Ins. Co. v. Curry, 511 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…r September indicating the amount of wages, if any, actually earned by Curry, and any other benefits that may have been received by him, it is impossible to determine accurately the amount of wage loss benefits due. See Bay Steel Erections v. Chung, 458 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Therefore, the wage loss award for the period 1-18 September 1986 is reversed and the case remanded with directions that Curry be required to complete and file a benefit form for that period. SMITH, C.J., and ERVIN, J., concur.…
-
Hulbert v. AVIS Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 469 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…supports our conclusion. See also Car Stop Unlimited v. Salmon, 404 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (application for hearing gave E/C sufficient notice of WL claim to require action). E/C rely on this court’s opinion in Bay Steel Erections v. Chung, 458 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). There, the claimant requested WL forms from the E/C but they were not provided. This court reversed a deputy’s order which excused claimant from filing the forms and we held that benefits were not due until completed forms were…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ardmore Farms & Esis v. Smith, 423 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Jones v. State, 401 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Lessie May Cooper v. State, 401 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)