JOSEPH MCCABE, APPELLANT,
v.
BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION AND FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT WRAP-UP, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a workers' compensation judge's finding that a claimant's left knee problems were unrelated to a work accident, holding that a prior 5% permanent impairment rating was res judicata, and remanded for consideration of deemed earning ability under section 440.15(4)(b).
A prior workers' compensation order establishing a 5% permanent impairment rating for a work-related left knee injury is res judicata and bars a subsequent finding that none of the claimant's left knee problems resulted from the accident.
[1] A prior workers' compensation order establishing a permanent impairment rating for a work-related injury operates as res judicata and precludes a subsequent finding that…
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 intelligenceJoseph McCabe suffered a left knee injury in a work accident on November 16, 1983, for which a prior order established a 5% permanent impairment ratin…
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 Modification Of Prior Order cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
The Claimant appeals a worker’s compensation order denying claims for permanent total disability benefits, for wage loss benefits, and for an independent evaluation by a vocational rehabilitation counselor. Because we find that the 5% permanent impairment rating due to the work-related left knee injury established in a prior order is res judicata in the absence of grounds for modification of the order, we reverse the judge of compensation claims’ finding in the order at issue that “none of claimant’s left knee problems were the result of the accident of November 16,1983.” We also reverse the alternative finding that “no proper permanent total disability claim is before me for adjudication,” in view of the fact that, although no formal claim is included in this record, the pretrial stipulation included a claim for permanent total disability. The order is otherwise affirmed, but the case is remanded to the judge of compensation claims for consideration of the applicability, if any, of the “deemed earning ability” provision, section 440.15(4)(b), Florida Statutes, in regard to the claim for wage loss benefits. See Ankeny v. Palm Beach County School Board, 643 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The judge may, in his discretion, receive additional evidence on this issue should that be found appropriate.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings. The motions for appellate attorney fees filed by the claimant and by the employer/carrier are both DENIED.
ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kilbourne & Sons & Nationwide Ins. v. Kilbourne, 677 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…fense to be presented, even though no formal claim or defense has been filed, and has been accepted and [*859] approved by the JCC, the claim or defense is properly at issue in a workers’ compensation proceeding. McCabe v. Bechtel Power Corporation, 645 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Here, the pretrial stipulation stating the defense of “lack of good faith job search” was accepted and approved by the JCC and thus, the defense was an issue although not stated in the notices of denial. The JCC erred in denying…
-
Lakeside Baptist Church & Preferred Risk Grp. v. Jones, 714 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…ipulation. We recognize that a claim listed in the parties’ stipulation can be considered even if it was not identified in the petition for benefits. See, Sabal Transport v. Brooks, 666 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); McCabe v. Bechtel Power Corp., 645 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). However, the pretrial stipulation in this case does not cure the omissions in the petition for benefits, because it likewise fails to identify the disputed claims. The claimant argues that the issues regarding neurological trea…
-
Sabal Transp. & the Claims Ctr. v. Brooks, 666 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ccepted and approved by the JCC, the claim or defense is properly at issue in a workers’ compensation proceeding.” Kilboume & Sons v. Kilboume, No. 93-3796, - So. 2d - [1995 WL 746378] (Fla. 1st DCA Dec. 19, 1995); see McCabe v. Bechtel Power Carp., 645 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). A contrary result would prove highly inefficient and would frustrate the purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Section 440.191(l)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), provides: “In order to effect the self-executing features…
Authorities Cited
- Ankeny v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Bd., 643 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)