OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL COMPANY AND CRAWFORD & COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
PAUL HOWARD, 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 appeal, the court affirmed awards of permanent total disability (PTD) and attendant care benefits but reversed the award of catastrophic loss benefits because the claimant returned to work the day after the injury and did not become permanently disabled until over two years later, outside the six-month window required by statute.
The claimant is not entitled to catastrophic loss benefits because the statute expressly provides that such increased temporary total disability compensation may in no event extend beyond six months from the date of injury. The circumstances here—where the claimant worked for more than two years before later becoming permanently totally disabled—do not fall within the statutory scope.
[1] Permanent total disability and attendant care benefits are supported by substantial competent evidence when the record contains such evidence.
[2] Catastrophic loss benefits under section 440.15(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), are limited to six months from the date of injury and do not apply when a claimant returns…
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 statute specifically provides that this increased temporary total disability compensation may in no event extend beyond six months from the date of injury”
Establishes the statutory limitation on catastrophic loss benefits that controls the outcome of the appeal
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant suffered an initial work-related injury but returned to work the day after the accident and continued working for the employer for more 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 Temporary Total Disability Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
In this appeal from a workers’ compensation order awarding permanent total disability and catastrophic loss benefits, as well as payments to the claimant’s wife for attendant care services, we find that substantial competent evidence in the record supports the PTD and attendant care awards.
However, we find that this claimant is not entitled to catastrophic loss benefits under section 440.15(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), because the statute specifically provides that this increased temporary total disability compensation may in no event extend beyond six months from the date of injury. This claimant returned to work the day after the accident and continued to work for the employer for more than two years, later becoming permanently totally disabled by complications resulting from the initial injury. The language of the statute does not indicate that the Florida Legislature intended it to be applied in such a case. The deputy commissioner’s award of catastrophic loss benefits from the date of maximum medical improvement is therefore REVERSED, and the order is otherwise AFFIRMED.
Appellee’s motion for attorney’s fee is provisionally granted. In accordance with the rationale of Sierra v. Sierra, 505 So. 2d 432 (Fla.1987), the parties may file within twenty (20) days of this date either a stipulation as to the amount of the fee to be assessed or affidavits as to the value of services on appeal. If there is no response within twenty (20) days, or if either party objects to proceeding on affidavits, Lyle v. Lyle, 167 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 172 So. 2d 601 (Fla.1964); Thoni v. Thoni, 179 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), the case will be remanded to the deputy commissioner for determination of the amount of the appellate attorney fee.
MILLS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A & J TIE Beam Serv. & Am. States Ins. Co. v. Kendle, 511 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…sible error in the duration of the catastrophic loss award. The claimant was injured on 8 July 1985. The deputy awarded catastrophic loss benefits for 26 weeks beginning 10 December 1985. As we recently observed in Occidental Chemical Co. v. Howard, 508 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), section 440.15(2)(b), Florida Statutes, expressly provides that catastrophic loss benefits may in no event extend beyond six months from the date of injury. We therefore reverse the award of catastrophic loss benefits for all p…
-
Bordo Citrus Prods. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tedder, 518 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…on disability award extended “beyond 6 months from the date of injury” as so limited in section 440.15(2)(b), citing our recent decisions in A & J Tie Beam Service v. Kendle, 511 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), and Occidental Chemical Co. v. Howard, 508 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The deputy commissioner did not have the benefit of those decisions at the time the appealed order was rendered and, other than the statement that the benefit period begins to run from October 8, 1986, the date claimant’s arm wa…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Lyle v. Lyle, 167 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Sierra v. Sierra, 505 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1987)
- Clark v. State, 172 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1965)
- Famous Brands Distribs., Inc. v. Hoke, 179 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Thoni v. Marine Parrish Thoni, 179 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)