SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN SENECA, 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.
Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company appeals a workers' compensation order finding claimant John Seneca permanently and totally disabled following a 1980 back injury. The Florida appellate court affirms the award, finding competent and substantial evidence supports the determination despite the claimant's earlier voluntary retirement.
The court affirms the workers' compensation order finding claimant permanently and totally disabled. The court rejects the employer's argument that voluntary retirement should defeat such benefits, holding that voluntary retirement cannot be considered a voluntary limitation of income in perpetuity when the claimant has conducted an adequate work search.
[1] A claimant's voluntary retirement does not constitute a perpetual voluntary limitation of income when the claimant demonstrates an adequate work search.
[2] Competent, substantial evidence in the record supports a deputy commissioner's order awarding permanent and total disability benefits in a workers' compensation case.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“From a review of the record, we find that there is competent, substantial evidence to support the dc's order awarding permanent and total disability benefits.”
States the standard of review and establishes that the deputy commissioner's order was supported by sufficient evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1980, claimant suffered a compensable back injury resulting in 20% permanent physical impairment. At age 62, with a background in physical labor po…
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
SMITH, Chief Judge.
Appellant, self-insured employer, seeks review of a workers’ compensation order finding claimant to be permanently and totally disabled. We affirm.
In 1980, claimant suffered a compensable back injury which resulted in a 20% permanent physical impairment of the body as a whole. Except for those periods when he was totally disabled, claimant was released to return to light-duty work commensurate with the extensive restrictions placed on his physical activities.
Claimant is sixty-two years old with two years of college and some specialized on-the-job training in the area of engineering. He has worked as a longshoreman, iceman, scaleman, sailor, and electrician. Since 1950, he has worked for the Bell Telephone Company in various positions, involving primarily physical labor. Claimant has not worked since his industrial accident. In February 1981, he exercised his option to retire rather than accept the sedentary position offered by appellant.
For the past 4½ years, claimant has conducted a work search to no avail. From January 1984 through July 1986, claimant contacted approximately 500 employers, including appellant on several occasions, without being offered any employment. During a fifteen-month period, Mr. Charles May, employer-approved vocational rehabilitation counselor, assisted claimant in his job search. At the hearing, Mr. May testified that claimant was unemployable.
This is the third appearance of claimant’s case before this court. On the first occa sion, the award of temporary total disability benefits for the period following claimant’s retirement was reversed on the ground that claimant had failed to seek subsequent employment after being offered a sedentary job by the employer. Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co. v. Seneca, 433 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). On the second occasion, the award of wage loss benefits from May 1982 through December 1983 was per curiam affirmed. Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co. v. Seneca, 458 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
In the third order now before this court, the deputy commissioner (dc) found that claimant was permanently and totally disabled. From a review of the record, we find that there is competent, substantial evidence to support the dc’s order awarding permanent and total disability benefits.
We find no merit in appellant’s argument that claimant would still be employed had he not voluntarily retired. That claimant’s voluntary retirement cannot be considered a voluntary limitation of his income in perpetuity in the face of an adequate work search has been implicitly determined by our opinion on the first appeal, and by the deputy commissioner’s order affirmed without opinion on the second appeal.
AFFIRMED.
MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roll v. Inlet, 609 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…e retirement is related to the industrial accident. Alberta v. American Freight Systems, 565 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). In Alberta, Phillips v. Duval County School Board, 577 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and Southern Bell Tel. Co. v. Seneca, 512 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), the employers were required to advise the claimants of their rights to wage-loss benefits after voluntary retirement. In each of those cases, however, the employees were either not able to return to work or were not offered empl…
-
Siegel v. AT & T Commc'ns & Gates McDonald, 611 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…er 19, 1990, on the basis that she had voluntarily limited her income by accepting early retirement. We agree and reverse on this point as well. It is clear from this court’s earlier decision in Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company v. Seneca, 512 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 1st DCA1987), that the mere fact [*1351] of voluntary retirement does not end the inquiry. In Seneca, this court held that a claimant’s “voluntary retirement cannot be considered a voluntary limitation of his income in perpetuity_” Id. at 1006…
-
Vann v. ST. Anthony's Hosp. & Gates, 550 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…that an unsuccessful job search over an extended period of time can support a finding of permanent total disability. See Oak Construction Company v. Jackson, 522 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company v. Seneca, 512 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (four and a half years); H.S. Camp & Sons v. Flynn, 450 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (three years).1 We have previously held, in the context of a claim for temporary total or permanent total disability benefits, that the work…
Authorities Cited
- S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Seneca, 433 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)