SANDRA MORRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
METAL INDUSTRIES, HEWITT, COLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 1986-07-09
No. BI-188
SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
491 So. 2d 312 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1986) Caution
Cited by 36 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that the employer/carrier's failure to inform the claimant of her rights and obligations under workers' compensation law excused her failure to conduct a good faith job search. The court affirmed the denial of temporary total disability benefits but reversed the denial of temporary partial disability benefits.

Facts & Procedural History

The employer/carrier terminated temporary total disability benefits without informing the claimant of her job search requirements. The claimant was la…

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.

Topics
Claim For Temporary Partial Disability Benefits Claim For Temporary Total Disability Benefits Temporary Partial Disability Benefits Temporary Total Disability Benefits

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Claim For Temporary Partial Disability Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
WIGGINTON, Judge.

WIGGINTON, Judge.

We affirm the deputy commissioner’s denial of temporary total disability benefits, as the record supports the finding that claimant was capable of performing at least light duty work. However, we reverse the order insofar as it denies the 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 conducting a good faith job search. DeFrees. The fact that claimant was later advised by counsel to conduct a job search is irrelevant, as the “Workers’ Compensation Act — in its day-to-day operation is intended to be — beyond all else — quintessentially an employer-carrier monitored system, rather than a claimant-attorney monitored system.” Barnes v. PCH Walter T. Parker, 464 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

Accordingly, that portion of the order denying 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.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (18 total)

  • Lucien COQ v. Fuchs Baking Co. & GAB Bus. Servs., 507 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
    …aimant, by finding and holding a job, performed the equivalent of a work search. An employee is excused from a job search if the employer fails to inform the employee 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 em…
  • Litvin v. ST. Lucie Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't & Crawford & Co., 599 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
    …ties is an aspect of the self-executing nature of the Workers’ Compensation Law, and the employer/servicing agent’s failure to comply with this obligation may relieve the claimant of a job search responsibility. See e.g., Morris v. Metal Industries, 491 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Although the circumstances still must demonstrate the necessary causal connection between the claimant’s injury and the wage loss, see Burger King v. Nicholas, 580 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the judge found such causation i…
  • Rios v. Fred Teitelbaum Constr. & U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 522 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
    …nform the employee of his rights and responsibilities under the Act.” Coq 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…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw