WILLIAM STANLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
OKEELANTA CORPORATION AND NATIONAL EMPLOYERS 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.
An injured worker appealed a workers' compensation order that denied temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits after his temporary total disability payments were discontinued. The court affirmed the denial of wage loss benefits after the date of maximum medical improvement but reversed the denial of TPD benefits, holding that the employer's failure to inform the worker of the work search requirement constituted a waiver of that requirement.
The court held that Stanley was entitled to TPD benefits from August 1, 1988, to December 6, 1988, because the employer's failure to advise him of the work search requirement waived that requirement. The date of maximum medical improvement of December 6, 1988, with no permanent impairment, was properly established by competent substantial evidence, and the denial of post-MMI wage loss benefits was affirmed.
[1] An employer's failure to advise an injured employee of the requirement to conduct a work search to qualify for temporary partial disability benefits constitutes a waiver…
[2] Temporary partial disability benefits are available to an employee who has regained the ability to work but has not yet reached maximum medical improvement, provided a co…
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“When an injured employee has regained the ability to work but has not yet reached MMI, he is no longer entitled to TTD benefits, but he is entitled, upon proof of a conscientious work search, to TPD benefits.”
Establishes the legal entitlement to TPD benefits during the period between regaining work ability and reaching maximum medical improvement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStanley was injured on February 15, 1988, and received temporary total disability benefits. In July and August 1988, his treating doctors determined h…
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 Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The claimant in this workers’ compensation case appeals from an order setting the date of maximum medical improvement (MMI), denying wage loss benefits after that date because of the absence of any permanent impairment, and denying temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits during the weeks preceding the MMI date. We affirm all portions of the order, except that portion denying TPD benefits.
On February 15, 1988, the appellant was injured in a compensable accident, and was paid temporary total disability (TTD) benefits from that date. During July and August of 1988, doctors treating the appellant determined that the appellant could return to work, at least on a light-duty basis. When the appellees thereupon discontinued payment of TTD benefits, they did not advise the appellant of his obligation to conduct a work search in order to qualify for TPD benefits. Based upon the medical evidence presented at the hearing, the judge of compensation claims found that the appellant reached MMI without any permanent impairment on December 6, 1988.
Accordingly, the judge denied the claim for wage loss benefits after the date of MMI. The judge also denied the claim for TPD benefits from August 1, 1988, the date the TTD benefits were terminated, to the date of MMI.
We find that the record contains competent substantial evidence supporting the finding that December 6, 1988, was the date of MMI. Competent substantial evidence also supports the finding of no permanent impairment, and consequently, the denial of post-MMI wage loss benefits. However, we find that the judge erred in denying the claim for TPD benefits between August 1, 1988, and December 6, 1988.
When an injured employee has regained the ability to work but has not yet reached MMI, he is no longer entitled to TTD benefits, but he is entitled, upon proof of a conscientious work search, to TPD benefits. Xerographics and Claims Center v. Bender, 558 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Ringling Bros. Barnum and Bailey Circus v. O’Blocki, 496 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); and Holiday Care Center v. Scriven, 418 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Here, the judge found deficiencies in the appellant’s work search during the period for which TPD benefits were claimed, but it is undisputed that the appel-lees did not advise the appellant of the necessity to conduct a work search. Under these circumstances, the work search requirement was waived, and the appellant was entitled to TPD benefits during the period. See Griffith v. McDonalds, 526 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) and Morris v. Metal Industries, 491 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Therefore, we must reverse that portion of the order which denied TPD benefits from August 1, 1988, to December 6, 1988. On remand, the judge of compensation claims should enter an order awarding TPD benefits for such period, less any credit due the appellees for benefits already paid.
Accordingly, the compensation order under review is reversed as to the denial of TPD benefits, and this cause is remanded for award of such benefits. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.
ERVIN, ALLEN and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Pensacola Firefighters & Fla. League of Cities v. Oswald, 710 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…strictions on account of the injury”). [*97] Wage loss benefits (on account of permanent partial disabilities) allowed under statutes formerly in force could not be awarded in the absence of some permanent impairment. See Stanley v. Okeelanta Corp., 575 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Griffith v. McDonalds, 526 So. 2d 1032, 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The final order does not find that Mr. Oswald has reached maximum medical improvement or assign a permanent impairment rating. Evidence adduced at the merit…
-
Nickolls v. Univ. OF Fla. & Div. of Risk Mgmt., 606 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…n, to inform the employee of his or her duty to conduct a work search. See, e.g., Saavedra v. Cedars Medical Ctr., 584 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Dyer v. Lakeland Health Care Ctr., 582 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Stanley v. Okeelanta Corp., 575 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Pan American World Airways v. Mash, 573 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Scott v. Container Corp. of Am., 559 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Parker v. Eaton Corp., 554 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Coleman v. Champion Int'l, I…
-
City OF Miami v. Jacoby, 599 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…nation activities were inconsistent with any alleged incapacity to work. See, e.g., Saavedra v. Cedars Medical Ctr., 584 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA1991); Dyer v. Lakeland Health Care Ctr., 582 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA1991); Stanley v. Okeelanta Corp., 575 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA1991); Pan Am. World Airways v. Mash, 573 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 1st DCA1991); Scott v. Container Corp. of Am., 559 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Parker v. Eaton Corp., 554 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 1st DCA1989); Coleman v. Champion Int’l Inc., 552…
Authorities Cited
- Holiday Care Ctr. v. Scriven, 418 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Morris v. Metal Indus., 491 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Griffith v. McDONALDS & Kemper Grp., 526 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey Circus & Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Horst O'Blocki, 496 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Xerographics & Claims Ctr. v. Bender, 558 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)