LADISLAO LAMAZARES, APPELLANT,
v.
RINKER SOUTHEASTERN MATERIALS CORP., AND LIBERTY MUTUAL 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 the denial of wage loss benefits for a ten-month period following his termination. The court reversed, holding that the deputy commissioner must consider all relevant circumstances and evidence regarding the causal connection between the injury and wage loss, rather than categorically denying benefits based solely on the employee's misconduct.
The court held that the award of wage loss benefits is not automatically precluded by non-injury-related factors such as discharge for cause. Instead, the deputy must consider all relevant circumstances and evidence, including work search evidence, to determine whether the claimant established the requisite causal connection between the compensable injury and the wage loss.
[1] A deputy commissioner must consider all relevant circumstances, including work search evidence, when determining if a claimant has shown a causal relationship between a c…
[2] Wage loss benefits are not automatically precluded by a claimant's discharge for just cause if other relevant factors contribute to the wage loss.
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“The award of wage-loss benefits is not precluded simply because the wage loss, occurring after a period of successful post-injury employment, is attributable in some part to a non-injury-related factor such as economic conditions, seasonal lay-off or discharge for just cause such as excessive absenteeism”
Establishes that misconduct or discharge for cause does not automatically bar wage loss benefits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLadislao Lamazares suffered a compensable work injury and later was terminated by Rinker Southeastern Materials on May 29, 1985. The deputy commission…
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 Causal Connection Between Injury And Wage Loss cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The deputy commissioner denied wage loss benefits for the period commencing with the claimant’s termination of his employment at Rinker Southeastern Materials on May 29, 1985, and ending March 31, 1986. The deputy found that Rinker fired the claimant because the claimant declined to accept a work assignment (driving a truck) which was apparently within his work restrictions and because the claimant falsely reported to his employer that he had aggravated his hand injury while driv ing a Rinker truck.1
It is apparent from the appealed order that the deputy denied wage loss for the entire ten-month period based solely on the above conduct of the claimant. As stated in Johnston v. Super Food Services, 461 So. 2d 169, 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984):
The award of wage-loss benefits is not precluded simply because the wage loss, occurring after a period of successful post-injury employment, is attributable in some part to a non-injury-related factor such as economic conditions, seasonal lay-off or discharge for just cause such as excessive absenteeism, (citations omitted)
Instead, the deputy is required to consider all relevant circumstances in determining whether the claimant has shown a causal relationship between the injury and the wage loss. Williams Roofing, Inc. v. Moore, 447 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
The deputy failed to consider other relevant evidence on the issue of causal connection, including the work search evidence. We therefore reverse and remand for consideration of such evidence in determining whether claimant has established the requisite causal connection between the claimed loss of wages during the ten-month period and the compensable injury. See Johnston v. Super Food Services, supra.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WENTWORTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur. NIMMONS, J., dissents without written opinion.
. As found by the deputy, another employee was driving the truck and was teaching the claimant how to operate the vehicle. The claimant attempted to persuade the other employee to lie by corroborating claimant’s story that he aggravated his hand injury while driving the truck.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Betancourt v. Sears Roebuck & Co. & Kemper Ins. Co., 693 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…he wage loss claimed is one of fact to be determined by the JCC upon a consideration of the totality of the circumstances. Thompson v. City of Jacksonville, 654 So. 2d 1178, 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Lamazares v. Rinker Southeastern Materials Corp., 519 So. 2d 34, 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Williams Roofing, Inc., 447 So. 2d at 972. Admittedly, the record shows that claimant was fired for insubordination. Nevertheless, the question remains whether claimant satisfied her burden of showing that her compen-sable…
-
Vencor Hosp. & Sentry Claims Serv. v. Ahles, 727 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…ee Thompson, 654 So. 2d at 1180. The immediate cause of her unemployment was wholly unrelated to the industrial accident. See, e.g., Sparks v. Aluma Shield Indus., 523 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Lamazares v. Rinker Southeastern Materials Corp., 519 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Western Union Tel. Co. v. Perri, 508 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Johnston v. Super Food Servs., 461 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Citrus Central v. Parker, 423 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); but see Ringling Bros. Barnum…
-
Moore v. Servicemaster Commercial Servs. & The Claims Ctr., 19 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…of income caused by the refusal to accept a suitable job does not permanently foreclose the right to indemnity benefits. See, e.g., Arnold v. Fla. Blood Ctrs., Inc., 949 So. 2d 242, 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Lamazares v. Rinker S.E. Materials Corp., 519 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Bado v. Canteen Corp., 513 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). At first blush, it would seem that, as a matter of law, Claimant’s refusal of the modified-dusting position would cease upon the termination of her employment and the…
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
- Trella Martinez v. Martinez, 447 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Johnston v. Super Food Servs. & Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 461 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)