CAROL MYERS, APPELLANT, HOLIDAY HOUSE AND CIGNA PROPERTY & CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 1991-04-08
No. 90-1475
ERVIN and WOLF, JJ., concur.
578 So. 2d 349 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1991) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Carol Myers appealed a workers' compensation order that reduced her wage loss benefits by deemed earnings of $280 per week. The appellate court reversed the deemed earnings reduction, finding that the employer/carrier failed to present sufficient evidence that more lucrative employment was available to Myers given her skills and physical limitations.


Holding

The court held that the employer/carrier failed to establish the necessary elements for applying deemed earnings. Specifically, there was no affirmative proof of more lucrative employment available to Myers that was commensurate with her skills and capabilities. Therefore, the wage loss award reduction should not have been applied.


Headnotes

[1] An employer/carrier must present an evidentiary predicate to support the application of deemed earnings in a workers' compensation wage loss award.

[2] Once a claimant meets the initial burden of proof for a wage loss award, the burden shifts to the employer/carrier to establish the elements for the application of deemed…

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

Key Quotes

“once the claimant's initial burden is satisfied it becomes incumbent upon the employer/carrier to establish the necessary elements for the application of deemed earnings, pursuant to section 440.15(3)(b)2, in connection with a voluntary limitation of income.”

Establishes that burden of proof shifts to employer/carrier after claimant meets initial wage loss burden

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Myers, a waitress, sustained an industrial back and leg injury. After medical release for light duty, she attempted to resume waitressing but could no…

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.


Opinion of the Court
ALLEN, Judge.

ALLEN, Judge.

Claimant appeals a workers’ compensation order by which she was awarded wage loss benefits reduced by deemed earnings of $280 per week. We find that employer/carrier did not present an evidentiary predicate below which would support the application of deemed earnings in accordance with section 440.15(3)(b)2, Florida Statutes (Supp.1984), and we therefore conclude that claimant’s wage loss award should not be reduced by any deemed earnings during the period in question.

Claimant sustained an industrial injury when she slipped and fell to the floor while working as a waitress. She developed problems in her back and leg, and attempted to resume her waitressing duties upon being medically released for light duty work. But claimant found that she was unable to maintain this employment, as her back and leg problems are aggravated if she is on her feet for lengthy periods of time or if she engages in activities such as repetitive bending. Employer/carrier’s claims adjuster referred claimant to a vocational placement service, but this produced no employment prospects and claimant began looking for a job on her own. She was paid workers’ compensation benefits during this time, and eventually found employment at a medical laboratory. After an initial full-time training period in this endeavor, claimant continued to work at the medical laboratory for twenty to twenty-five hours per week. She testified that three other women also work at the lab, with two of them working “probably thirty, thirty-five” hours per week, and the other one working less. Claimant indicated that she has a flexible arrangement which allows her to work as few as ten hours some weeks, as her physical condition requires. She is paid a fixed salary of $810 per month regardless of the number of hours which she works.

We find that the judge below was entitled to conclude that claimant met her initial burden of proof for a wage loss award, as delineated in cases such as City of Clermont v. Rumph, 450 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA), pet. for rev. den., 458 So. 2d 271 (Fla.1984). While a part-time work effort may sometimes constitute a voluntary limitation of earnings, see e.g., Hillsborough County School Bd. v. Filter, 539 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), once the claimant’s initial burden is satisfied it becomes incumbent upon the employer/carrier to establish the necessary elements for the application of deemed earnings, pursuant to section 440.15(3)(b)2, in connection with a voluntary limitation of income. See Iverson v. Holy Cross Hosp., 498 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Tampa Elec. Co. v. Bradshaw, 477 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); see also, Rios v. Fred Teitelbaum Const., 522 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The employer/carrier’s burden in this regard requires affirmative proof as to the specific availability of more lucrative employment commensurate with the claimant’s skills and capabilities. See Rios; Bradshaw; Pompano Roofing Co., Inc. v. O’Neal, 410 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

In the present case there was no evidence that other more lucrative employment was available for claimant. While two of her coworkers may have had additional hours of employment, there was no indication that claimant could be provided with additional hours. There was no evidence as to the coworkers’ rate of pay. And there was no indication that claimant’s fixed salary, which she received regardless of the number of hours worked, would be increased if her usual hours were extended. This case thus lacks the necessary evidentiary predicate for the application of deemed earnings. We therefore conclude that claimant’s wage loss award during the period in question should not have been reduced by deemed earnings under section 440.15(3)(b)2.

The appealed order is reversed insofar as claimant’s wage loss award was diminished “based upon an ability to earn $280 per week....” The order is amended so as to delete this language and, as amended, the order is otherwise affirmed.

ERVIN and WOLF, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Clairson Int'l & Riscorp v. White, 585 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
    …Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The rule in those cases where the claimant has met the initial burden is that the carrier has the burden to establish that the claimant is voluntarily limiting his income by obtaining part-time employment. Myers v. Holiday House, 578 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Walker v. Heavy Machinery Tool and Transporters, Inc., 576 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In order to meet the initial burden, however, the claimant must present competent evidence of medical restrictions which would limit him…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw