ALBERT PHILLIPS, APPELLANT,
v.
POOLS BY ANDREW AND CLAIMS CENTER, 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.
The court reversed an order for vocational evaluation because the judge of compensation claims made no factual findings supporting the need for such evaluation.
An order requiring vocational evaluation must be supported by evidence and factual findings demonstrating the need for evaluation.
[1] An order requiring vocational evaluation in workers' compensation proceedings must be supported by evidence and factual findings demonstrating the necessity for such eval…
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 intelligenceAlbert Phillips, an injured worker, appealed an order from the judge of compensation claims granting the employer/carrier's motion to evaluate the cla…
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 Evaluation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Albert Phillips appeals from an order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC) which granted the employer/carrier’s motion “to evaluate the claimant to determine the need for, and the kind of service necessary and appropriate to restore the claimant to suitable gainful employment.” We reverse the order of the JCC because there was no evidence presented or factual findings to support the need for the evaluation. See Strawter v. Atlas Steel Fence, Inc., 578 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Dimirra Dev., Inc. v. Mills, 501 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).1
In light of our holding, it is unnecessary for us to address the application of section 440.49(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1990),2 to accidents which occurred prior to October 1, 1989, or the statute’s application to mandated evaluations versus mandated vocational rehabilitation.
ERVIN and WOLF, JJ., and CAWTHON, Senior Judge, concur. . We reject appellees' contention that claimant acquiesced in the entry of the order or waived the required factual findings. A review of the hearing indicates claimant’s counsel’s continued opposition to entry of the order. . The amended provision provides, "Neither the employer, carrier, or injured employee is required to furnish or accept voluntary vocational rehabilitation services."
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Matthew Galloway, M.D. v. Orthopedic Specialists, LLP, 224 So. 3d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…nding at a trial on the merits. See Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981); Klak v. Eagles’ Reserve Homeowners’ Ass’n., 862 So. 2d 947, 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Hialeah, Inc. v. Calder Race Course, Inc., 620 So. 2d 261, 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Affirmed. CRENSHAW and BLACK, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Dimirra Dev., Inc. v. Mills, 501 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Strawter v. Atlas Steel Fence, 578 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)