LISA HILL, APPELLANT,
v.
BAPTIST HOSPITAL, 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.
In this workers' compensation case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed in part and affirmed in part an order denying temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits to an injured nurse's assistant. The court held that unemployment compensation benefits do not completely offset TPD benefits, only temporary total benefits, and that the claimant was entitled to TPD benefits exceeding her unemployment compensation during the period she conducted a good faith work search.
The court held that unemployment compensation benefits are a complete offset only against temporary total benefits, not TPD benefits. TPD benefits are based on actual wage loss and unemployment benefits should be primary with wage loss benefits supplemental, with the combined benefits not exceeding the wage loss benefit amount. A claimant is not entitled to TPD benefits absent a conscientious work search or medically justifiable excuse from the duty to seek work.
[1] Unemployment compensation benefits are a complete offset against temporary total disability benefits, but not against temporary partial disability benefits.
[2] Temporary partial disability benefits are based on actual wage loss.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Section 440.15(10)(a), however, makes such payment a complete offset only against temporary total benefits — not TPD benefits.”
Establishes the critical distinction that unemployment compensation offsets only temporary total benefits, not temporary partial disability benefits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLisa Hill, a nurse's assistant, sustained a work-related back injury on January 19, 1983. After an initial absence, she returned to light-duty work fo…
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 Temporary Partial Disability Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation case, claimant appeals an order denying her claim for temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits, first, from March 3, 1983 through September 1983, and second, from November 1, 1983 until the date of the hearing, April 27, 1984.
We reverse and remand that portion of the order as it relates to the prior period, but affirm the latter. Claimant, a nurse’s assistant, sustained a work-related injury to her back on January 19, 1983. Claimant, after an absence from work for several days, returned to work with a physician’s restriction to avoid heavy lifting. She was at first given light-duty work for one week at the medical records department of the hospital, but she was thereafter terminated because physical limitations prevented her from performing her former work as a nurse’s assistant. After termination, she performed what the deputy deemed to be a satisfactory work search through September 1983. Benefits, however, were denied for this period because she was then receiving unemployment compensation benefits, which the deputy determined, relying upon Section 440.15(10)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982), to be “a complete offset against temporary benefits.” She was also denied TPD thereafter in that she failed to conduct a work search of any kind, in large measure because she was on a full-time basis attending cosmetology school.
We affirm the deputy’s denial of benefits during the time claimant conducted no work search. In the absence of a conscientious work search or a medically justifiable excu-sal from the duty to look for work, there is no entitlement to TPD compensation. See Eastside Bait & Tackle v. Humphrey, 440 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
We reverse and remand the denial of TPD benefits from March 3, 1983 through September 1983, the time-frame that claimant was receiving unemployment compensation benefits. The deputy found ample evidence to support claimant’s entitlement to temporary benefits during this period as evidenced by a good faith work search; however, he denied the TPD benefits for this period, incorrectly concluding that unemployment benefits are a complete offset against temporary benefits.
Section 440.15(10)(a), however, makes such payment a complete offset only against temporary total benefits — not TPD benefits.
Section 440.15(10)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982), provides that unemployment compensation benefits shall be primary and wage loss benefits shall be supplemental only, the sum of the two benefits not to exceed the amount of wage loss benefits which would otherwise be payable. There is no reference to TPD benefits in Section 440.15(10)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982).
However, Section 440.15(4)(a), Florida Statutes, defines TPD benefits as being based on “actual wage loss.” Therefore, for purposes of Section 440.15(10)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982), we regard wage loss benefits as encompassing TPD benefits.1 Claimant is entitled to receive any TPD benefits which exceed the amount of unemployment compensation benefits received during the period from March 3, 1983 through September 1983.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further consistent proceedings.
ERVIN, C.J., and SMITH and NIM-MONS, JJ., concur. . In fact, in 1983 the Florida Legislature amended Section 440.15(10)(b) (Supp.1982) to specifically include temporary partial disability benefits.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey Circus & Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Horst O'Blocki, 496 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…of TPD and wage-loss herein. When an injured worker has recovered the ability to work but is not yet MMI, he is entitled to TPD benefits but only as established by a conscientious work search or a medical excuse therefor. Hill v. Baptist Hospital, 464 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). There is no evidence of a medical excuse for the required search but we find that, with regard to the period between December 1984 and April 1985, there was competent, substantial evidence that O’Blocki conducted a conscientious…
-
Ninia v. Sw. Bottlers & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 547 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…ort to return to work. It is well settled that entitlement to temporary partial disability benefits requires evidence of a conscientious work search, or a medically justifiable reason to excuse the work search requirement. Hill v. Baptist Hospital, 464 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Generally, the adequacy of a claimant’s work search is a question of fact for the deputy. However, the good faith of the work search should be determined in light of all the existing circumstances, which would include such matte…
-
City OF Miami v. Ulysses Fernandez, 603 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…ting to an exception to the general rule that, absent medical testimony of an inability to work, a claimant is required to conduct a search for employment. See generally, K-Mart v. Young, 526 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Hill v. Baptist Hospital, 464 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Pompano Roofing Co., Inc. v. O’Neal, 410 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Turning now to the issues raised on appeal, we conclude based on an analysis of the pertinent statutory subsections and the evidence presented that the JC…
Authorities Cited
- Eastside Bait & Tackle & Fla. Farm Bureau v. Corene S. Humphrey, 440 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)