CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH AND CRAWFORD & COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT HOSIER, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the City of West Palm Beach and its insurer challenged an award of temporary total disability (TTD) and permanent total disability (PTD) benefits to a firefighter injured in 1984. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the TTD award was made on an issue not properly before the judge, the temporary partial wage-loss benefits needed clarification, and the judge's identification of the claimant's physician as a cardiologist (when he was actually an internal medicine specialist) may have affected the PTD determination.
The court reversed the award of TTD benefits because the issue was not placed before the judge by the parties, and the notice of hearing specified only PTD and wage-loss benefits as disputed issues. The court reversed and remanded for clarification of the wage-loss benefits award, which appeared to be temporary partial rather than temporary total. The court also reversed and remanded the PTD award to determine whether the judge's misidentification of Dr. Stern's specialty affected his decision.
[1] An award of temporary total disability benefits is error when the issue of entitlement to such benefits was not placed before the judge of compensation claims.
[2] A judge of compensation claims' order may be reversed and remanded for clarification when the order appears to award temporary partial wage-loss benefits based on a setof…
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“Because the parties did not place the issue of entitlement to TTD benefits before the JCC, the award of such benefits was error.”
Establishes that judges cannot award benefits on issues not properly presented by the parties.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 12, 1984, claimant suffered a work-related heart condition while employed as a firefighter with the City of West Palm Beach. He claimed wage-lo…
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 Medical Expert Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order awarding compensation benefits. Appellants contend that errors were committed in awarding temporary total disability (TTD) and permanent total disability (PTD) benefits.
On May 12,1984, claimant was injured in a work-related accident when he developed heart problems while employed with the City of West Palm Beach Fire Department.1 Claimant asserted a claim for wage-loss benefits for the period May 13, 1984 through July 14,1990, and PTD thereafter. At final hearing, claimant’s counsel stipulated that no TTD benefits were due. The notice of hearing states that the specific issues in dispute were the award of PTD and wage-loss benefits. Because the parties did not place the issue of entitlement to TTD benefits before the JCC, the award of such benefits was error. Village Inn Restaurant v. Aridi, 543 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
However, the JCC’s order states in pertinent part:
WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the self-insured employer shall:
1. Pay temporary total disability benefits at the rate of $288.00 a week from April 27, 1985 through November 7, 1989, with interest and penalties.
2. The employer shall take credit against temporary partial wage loss benefits for earnings from Adcolor, [emphasis added]
Based on the setoff awarded in paragraph 2, it appears that the JCC intended to award temporary partial wage-loss benefits. Therefore, we reverse and remand for clarification of the order. As to the award of PTD, it is supported by the testimony of Dr. Stern, claimant’s treating physician, that claimant was unable to perform any “particular sustained work.” However, the JCC, in specifically accepting Dr. Stern’s testimony over that of Drs. Price and Beaver, held:
I find Dr. Stern’s testimony to be ... the most persuasive having considered all three physicians as experts in this field. Clearly, Dr. Stern was in the best position to give testimony on the condition of the claimant, having been the claimant’s continuous treating cardiologist for the past six years.
The record reveals that the JCC was mistaken in his identification of Dr. Stern as a cardiologist. In fact, Dr. Stern is a doctor of osteopathic medicine with a specialty in general internal medicine. Therefore, we must remand the order for correction and clarification as to whether the JCC’s opinion was affected by this misidentification.
Accordingly, we reverse the award of TTD and PTD benefits, and remand for proceedings consistent herewith.
BOOTH, SHIVERS and MINER, JJ., concur. . The employer accepted the accident as compensable.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Vill. INN Rest. & Gallagher-Bassett Servs., Inc. v. Aridi, 543 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)