HYATT HOTEL AND ALEXSIS RISK MANAGEMENT, APPELLANTS,
v.
EDUARDO LALU, 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.
Hyatt Hotel and its workers' compensation carrier appealed an award of temporary partial wage-loss benefits to injured worker Eduardo Lalu. The appellate court reversed, holding that the employer/carrier had no statutory duty to offer rehabilitation benefits, and the lower court erred in conditioning the wage-loss award on the employer's failure to provide such benefits.
The employer/carrier has no statutory responsibility to offer rehabilitation benefits—that duty rests solely with the Division under Florida Statute § 440.49(1)(a). The lower court erred in conditioning the wage-loss award on the employer's failure to provide rehabilitation, and the case must be remanded to determine whether the claimant voluntarily limited his income by failing to search for jobs within his capabilities.
[1] An award of wage-loss benefits cannot be predicated on an employer/carrier's failure to offer rehabilitation benefits when the statutory responsibility for providing such…
[2] A claimant's work search is not necessarily inadequate solely because it is limited to the claimant's known field of experience, absent a statutory obligation for the emp…
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“Section 440.49(l)(a), Fla.Stat., (1989), places the burden of providing rehabilitation benefits on the Division. The E/C have no statutory responsibility to offer claimant rehabilitation benefits.”
Establishes the core legal principle that the statutory duty to provide rehabilitation benefits lies with the Division, not the employer/carrier.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEduardo Lalu, a worker with limited work experience primarily in the food industry, was injured on January 25, 1990. After his injury, Lalu searched f…
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 Adequacy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from an award of compensation benefits. The order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC) states in pertinent part:
6. That based on his limited work experience, the claimant looked for the only type of work he knew, that being related to the food industry. Despite the carrier’s admonishing the claimant to look for other types of work, they neither offered nor recommended any type of rehabilitation or retraining to the claimant to assist him in finding work outside of his experience.
7. That based on the testimony of the claimant, Eduardo Lalu, and the carrier representative, Rita Torron, I find that the claimant is doing the only type of work search he knows how. I further find that unless and until the employer/carrier offers the claimant retraining, that the claimant need only look for work within the food industry to constitute an adequate work search.
The JCC based the award of temporary partial wage-loss benefits solely on the basis that the employer and carrier (E/C) “neither offered nor recommended any type of rehabilitation or retraining ... to assist [claimant] in finding work outside his experience.” Section 440.49(l)(a), Fla.Stat., (1989),1 places the burden of providing rehabilitation benefits on the Division. The E/C have no statutory responsibility to offer claimant rehabilitation benefits. Therefore, the JCC’s order erroneously predicates the award of wage-loss benefits on a requirement that the E/C offer rehabilitation benefits. We cannot determine that the JCC would have awarded wage-loss benefits without this erroneous finding.
Accordingly, the order is reversed and remanded for a determination of whether claimant voluntarily limited his income by failing to search for jobs within his limitations.
BOOTH, SMITH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. . Section 440.49(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), states in pertinent part:
When an employee has suffered an injury covered by this chapter and it appears that the injury will preclude the employee from earning wages equal to wages earned prior to the injury, the employee shall be entitled to appropriate training and education. Upon request by the employee or the employer, the division shall provide such injured employee with appropriate training and education.... [emphasis added]
Section 440.49(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), became effective on October 1, 1989. See Ch. 89-289, § 45, Laws of Fla. Claimant was injured on January 25, 1990. Therefore, the amendment applies to claimant’s injury.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hyatt Hotel & Alexsis Risk Mgmt. v. Lalu, 638 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…PER CURIAM. This workers’ compensation case comes before the court for review following the entry of an order on remand from this court’s decision in Hyatt Hotel v. Lain, 605 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The question we posed for consideration on remand was “whether claimant voluntarily limited his income by failing to search for jobs within his limitations.” 605 So. 2d at 966. Hyatt Hotel now challenges the JCC’s finding “that…