GULF LIFE INSURANCE AND MARYLAND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
EDWARD MULLALY, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed and remanded a workers' compensation order finding permanent total disability because the judge's findings regarding whether a work hardening program was remedial or merely palliative were internally inconsistent and contradictory.
An order finding permanent total disability must be remanded when it contains internal inconsistencies regarding whether a work hardening program is remedial or merely palliative in nature.
[1] An order awarding permanent total disability benefits must be remanded for clarification when it contains contradictory findings regarding whether a proposed work hardeni…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA workers' compensation claimant with a back condition was evaluated for a work hardening program. The judge of compensation claims found the program …
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 Vocational Rehabilitation cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Chief Judge.
The employer/carrier (E/C) appeal workers’ compensation order finding claimant to be permanently, totally disabled (PTD). We remand for clarification because the Judge of Compensation Claims’ order appears to contain internal inconsistencies which preclude his ultimate finding of PTD. The judge found in paragraph 6 of his order that the work hardening program characterized by Dr. Bullock as remedial was in actuality palliative in nature since it would not serve to remedy the claimant’s back condition but would serve only to attempt to train him to cope with work. Further, in paragraph 7, the judge properly considered section 440.49(l)(c) and determined that, since vocational rehabilitation was not a reasonable probability, the statute was not triggered. Within that same paragraph, however, the judge found that “medical rehabilitation through work hardening” was both a “reasonable probability” and was in the claimant’s “best interest.” It is not clear from the order what the judge intended in distinguishing vocational rehab from medical rehab. This seems to be a contradiction of his finding in paragraph 6 that the work hardening program was designed only to train claimant to cope with work and not to improve his back condition.
That being the case, the appellant correctly asserts that the judge has made two inconsistent findings: (1) that the work hardening program is indeed remedial in nature; and (2) that the claimant is PTD. Because of the apparent conflict in the order, we remand for clarification or modification.
REVERSED and REMANDED for clarification and/or modification.
JOANOS and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Circle K Corp. & Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc. v. Lackey, 637 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…rthopedic evaluation and [*361] “possible further work-up,” we reverse, and remand with directions that the judge of compensation claims clarify his intent. E.g., Hewett v. Town of Mayo, 614 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Gulf Life Ins. v. Mullaly, 566 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions. MINER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.…
-
Brower v. Certified Grocers & Fred S. James & Co., 581 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…that Dr. Faris was authorized; but such a finding is inconsistent with the denial of payment of Dr. Faris’ bills. Because of the internal inconsistency in the order, we reverse and remand for clarification or modification. Gulf Life Ins. v. Mullaly, 566 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Department of Business Regulation v. DeArmitt, 536 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part and REMANDED for clarification and/or modification. BOOTH and ALLEN, JJ., concur.…