WALTER MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD COLE ROOFING AND CIGNA COMPANIES, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the court reversed the deputy commissioner's dismissal of wage-loss benefit claims for October 1985 through April 1986, holding that entitlement to wage-loss benefits must be determined monthly and cannot be foreclosed by an earlier determination regarding a different period.
The deputy commissioner erred in failing to consider de novo the claim for wage-loss benefits from October 1985 through April 1986. Entitlement to wage-loss benefits must be determined monthly, and failure to qualify for one period does not preclude benefits for a subsequent period. The application of deemed earnings to one month does not automatically authorize its application in subsequent months.
[1] Entitlement to wage-loss benefits is determined monthly, and failure to qualify for one period does not preclude benefits for a subsequent period.
[2] A prior determination of deemed earnings to reduce wage-loss benefits for one month does not automatically entitle an employer/carrier to apply deemed earnings for subseq…
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“This failure violated the principle that entitlement to wage-loss benefits is determined monthly, and that failure to qualify for one period does not necessarily preclude benefits for a subsequent period.”
Establishes the core legal principle that wage-loss benefits must be evaluated on a monthly basis independently
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant filed a workers' compensation claim for wage-loss benefits in June 1985. A deputy commissioner issued an order on 14 April 1986 awarding full…
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 Work Search cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
The claimant in this workers’ compensation case filed a claim for wage-loss benefits in June 1985 that resulted in an order dated 14 April 1986. In the order, the deputy commissioner found the claimant entitled to full wage-loss benefits from May 1985 through 20 July 1985. He also found the claimant entitled to wage-loss benefits reduced by deemed earnings for September 1985. No findings were made relative to any period following September 1985. The order was not appealed.
Also on 14 April 1986, the claimant filed another claim seeking wage-loss benefits from April 1985 through April 1986. The claim was controverted, and the deputy entered the order appealed on 25 July 1986. The deputy found the previous order res judicata as to the claimant’s deemed earning capacity. He treated the 14 April 1986 claim as a petition to modify the order of the same date. Concluding there had been no mistake of fact or change in condition, the deputy dismissed the “modification petition” with prejudice.
The claimant concedes that the un-appealed order of 14 April 1986 established entitlement to, and the amount of, wage-loss benefits through September 1985, and that the deputy had no obligation to revisit that period. But the claimant argues that the deputy ecred in failing to consider de novo the claim for wage-loss benefits from October 1985 through April 1986, including the applicability or inapplicability of deemed earnings to that claim. We agree.
This failure violated the principle that entitlement to wage-loss benefits is determined monthly, and that failure to qualify for one period does not necessarily preclude benefits for a subsequent period. Regency Inn v. Johnson, 422 So. 2d 870, 881 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), review denied, 431 So. 2d 989 (Fla.1983). In addition, a finding that .deemed earnings may be applied to reduce wage-loss benefits for one month does not automatically entitle an employer/carrier to apply deemed earnings thereafter. The issue with respect to each month for which wage-loss benefits are claimed is whether the evidence supports a connection between the wage loss and the compensable injury. Whalen v. U.S. Elevator, 486 So. 2d 670, 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Because the deputy did not consider this fundamental issue, including the claimant’s work search for the period after September 1985, we reverse the denial of wage-loss benefits for October 1985 through April 1986, and remand for reconsideration on the merits of the claim for that period. The deputy’s refusal to reconsider the claim for benefits during the period covered in the order of 14 April 1986 is affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
WENTWORTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Powers v. Berti-Ferguson OF Fla. & CNA Ins., 510 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…anent physical impairment, also accompanied in this case by continuing medical restrictions on functional activity. The quoted finding of “demonstrated ability” in accord with the usual standards for wage loss claims, Miller v. Richard Cole Roofing, 510 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), is confined strictly to the specific months and conditions then in question. Affirmed. MILLS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.…
-
Gator Shoe Corp. v. Darina Rivero Mungia and Division of Workers' Compensation, 510 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…those constraints, Wellcraft Marine Corp. v. Turner, 435 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), no such rigidity applies in the determination of work search and other causal connection issues in successive wage loss claims. Miller v. Richard Cole Roofing, 510 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). We affirm, however, because the order otherwise indicates the deputy did properly [*1193] evaluate anew the evidence presented as to the current period, and did not limit his consideration to res judicata and modification prin…
-
Hobart Wilbanks v. Cianbro Corp. & U.S.F. & G., 512 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…ng the period for which benefits were claimed. Entitlement to wage loss benefits is, of course, determined monthly, and failure to qualify for one period does not necessarily preclude benefits for a subsequent period. Miller v. Richard Cole Roofing, 510 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Whalen v. U.S. Elevator, 486 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Johnston v. Super Food Services, 461 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We find no merit in other points raised. The order, as amended, is affirmed. MILLS and BARFIELD,…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Regency INN v. Johnson, 422 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Whalen v. U.S. Elevator & U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 486 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)