WANDA DEFREES, APPELLANT,
v.
COLT AND DUMONT/HIT SALES AND HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
A workers' compensation claimant appealed a deputy commissioner's finding that her job search was inadequate because she failed to provide documentation. The court reversed, holding that an employer/carrier has a duty to inform injured employees of their job search obligations and cannot penalize a claimant for failing to document a search when never notified of the requirement.
The court held that the failure of an employer/carrier to notify a claimant of the job search requirement is grounds for excusing the necessity of conducting a good faith job search with documentation, particularly when the employer/carrier was on notice of the worker's unemployment status.
[1] An employer/carrier's failure to inform a claimant of the obligation to conduct and document a job search can excuse the claimant's inability to provide specific details…
[2] An employer/carrier has a duty to inform injured employees of their rights, benefits, and obligations under workers' compensation law, including the requirement for a doc…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The evidence in the record is uncontra-dicted that DeFrees was never informed of her duty to conduct a work search or of her duty to document that search by the employer/carrier.”
Establishes the undisputed factual foundation for reversing the deputy commissioner's order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeFrees was injured and unable to continue working for her employer due to bronchitis. Between August 1983 and September 1984, she conducted a job sea…
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 Workers' Compensation Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, GUYTE P., Jr. (Ret.), Associate Judge.
By this workers’ compensation appeal, DeFrees complains of the deputy commissioner’s order finding her job search between 8 August 1983 and 17 September 1984 was inadequate, when she was not informed by the employer/carrier of her obligation to supply job search records. We reverse.
The evidence in the record is uncontra-dicted that DeFrees was never informed of her duty to conduct a work search or of her duty to document that search by the employer/carrier. Accordingly, she argues her inability to be more specific regarding details of her work search should be excused. The employer offers two lines of defense against this argument. First, because the record shows that it sent out a standard form letter, it acted reasonably. However, the confusing language of this letter makes no mention of the requirement under Chapter 440 of a documented work search.
Alternatively, the employer contends that it was not put on sufficient notice that DeFrees was out of work, and thus should be excused for not making the necessary information available to her. The record refutes this argument. DeFrees made several phone calls to the carrier informing them of her status and followed them up with letters. Further, the carrier received letters from two different physicians informing them that DeFrees could no longer work for the employer and that she continued to suffer from bronchitis problems.
In his order, the deputy states:
Although the Florida District Court of Appeal has held that the failure of the employer/carrier to provide temporary partial disability or wage loss forms can be grounds to excuse the late filing of the forms, the Appellate Court has not gone so far as to hold that a failure of the employer/carrier to notify the claimant of the job search requirement is grounds for excusing the necessity of conducting a good faith job search.
The case at bar requires the court to take this extra step. Sections 440.185(2)(e) and (4), Florida Statutes (1979), both make clear mention of the employer’s and the division’s duty to mail to injured employees an informational brochure setting forth in “clear and understandable language” a summary of that worker’s “rights, benefits, and obligations” under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Moreover, as was stated in Holiday Care Center v. Scriven, 418 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), a case dealing with the premature termination of temporary total disability benefits by the employer:
In these circumstances the employer’s duty was at the very minimum to provide the still healing and still unemployed worker with forms for use in furnishing information pertinent to possible temporary partial disability benefits. Fla.Admin.Code R. 38F-3.19.
REVERSED.
ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Lucien COQ v. Fuchs Baking Co. & GAB Bus. Servs., 507 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…ee of his rights and responsibilities under the Act. See Morris v. Metal Industries, 491 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (claimant excused from job search, even though advised by own counsel to perform a search); Defrees v. Colt and Dumont/Hit Sales, 483 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (claimant excused from job search when a form letter from the employer made no mention of the requirement under Chapter 440 for a documented work search). The claimant at bar stated without contradiction that he was never provide…
-
Morris v. Metal Indus., 491 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…he claim for temporary partial disability benefits. In this case, the employer/carrier failed in their duty to inform claimant of her “ ‘rights, benefits, and obligations’ under the Workers’ Compensation Law.” DeFrees v. Colt and DuMont/Hit Sales, 483 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The failure of the employer/carrier to notify the “ ‘still healing and still unemployed’ ” claimant of the job search requirement after terminating temporary total disability benefits is grounds for excusing the necessity of con…
-
Rios v. Fred Teitelbaum Constr. & U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 522 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…v. Fuchs Baking Company, 507 So. 2d 138, 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). See also Lopez v. Nabisco Brands, Inc., 516 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Morris v. Metal Industries, Inc., 491 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Defrees v. Colt and Dumont/Hit Sales, 483 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In other words, the work search requirement is an evidentiary burden rather than an absolute condition precedent to an award of wage loss benefits. Austen Con [*1018] struction Management Corporation v. Waters, 508 So. 2d 763 (F…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Holiday Care Ctr. v. Scriven, 418 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)