SHERATON BAL HARBOUR AND INA/AETNA, APPELLANTS,
v.
LIGIA CARDOZA, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed wage-loss benefits for injured waitress unable to perform banquet duties but remanded for adjustment to exclude losses unrelated to the compensable injury.
Wage-loss benefits are properly awarded for inability to return to a second job due to compensable injury, but must be adjusted to exclude losses attributable to unrelated conditions.
[1] Wage-loss benefits in workers' compensation are properly limited to losses caused by the compensable injury and do not include losses attributable to unrelated medical co…
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 intelligenceA waitress suffered a compensable work injury and was able to return to her coffee shop job but could not resume her banquet waitress position due to …
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 Compensable Accident cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation case, the employer/carrier appeal an order awarding temporary partial and wage-loss benefits to claimant.
Claimant suffered a compensable accident and was subsequently able to return to work as a coffee shop waitress, but was unable to resume her second job as a banquet waitress because she was unable to lift the heavier banquet trays with her injured hand. Claimant was awarded wage-loss benefits for the loss of wages due to her inability to return to work as a banquet waitress. We affirm this award of benefits by the deputy commissioner with one correction. Contrary to his own findings, the deputy commissioner awarded wage-loss benefits for time lost at the coffee shop. Because the deputy commissioner found the claimant’s injury, subsequent to the date of release to return to work, did not affect her wage-earning capacity as a coffee shop waitress, after being reemployed as such, the wage-loss benefits must be adjusted to reflect losses due to the compensable injury only and not other unrelated conditions such as asthma and nerves. The benefits paid for the period including July 5 through 11, 1981 must be adjusted to properly reflect the benefits due .from the compensable injury alone.
The order is affirmed as modified but remanded for the recomputation prescribed herein.
BOOTH, SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ames v. State, 470 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…ion is revoked after that date, the defendant must affirmatively elect to be sentenced under the guidelines for them to apply. See Smith v. State, 465 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Jordon v. State, 460 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Mack v. State, 458 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Boyett v. State, 452 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) Aff'd. State v. Boyett, 467 So. 2d 997 (Fla.1985); Duggar v. State, 446 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). See also Irving v. State, 464 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The order…
-
Kimble v. State, 458 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…tate in writing reasons for imposing a departure sentence. Because of appellant’s election the guidelines were applicable. See Carroll v. State, 454 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Rutlin v. State, 455 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Mack v. State, 458 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). We have recently held that as to sentence imposed before July 1, 1984,2 in the exercise of judicial sentencing discretion and when articulated in writing as required by the rules, a violation of probation may serve as a clear a…
-
Milton v. State, 461 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…to the time probation was imposed. This approach is reflected in the dissenting opinion of Judge Campbell in Boyett v. State, 452 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). This court, however, previously has adopted the Boyett majority view. See Mack v. State, 458 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Rutlin v. State, 455 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); O’Brien v. State, 454 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Dunn v. State, 454 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). The First District Court of Appeal also agrees with Boyett. See Dugga…