DONALD M. VICKERS, APPELLANT,
v.
EMERGENCY ONE, INC. AND ALEXSIS RISK MANAGEMENT, INC., 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.
Donald Vickers appealed a denial of permanent total disability (PTD) benefits by a workers' compensation judge. The court reversed and remanded because the judge failed to address whether Vickers satisfied the alternative basis for PTD eligibility—a lengthy and exhaustive job search—despite recognizing the correct legal standard.
The order denying PTD benefits was reversed and remanded because although the judge's determination regarding inability to perform light duty work was supported by competent substantial evidence, the order was facially insufficient for failing to address whether the claimant met his burden through evidence of his job search.
[1] A claimant seeking permanent total disability benefits must demonstrate either an inability to perform light duty work uninterruptedly due to physical limitations or a le…
[2] A Judge of Compensation Claims' order denying permanent total disability benefits is facially insufficient if it fails to address the claimant's job search efforts when t…
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“To establish entitlement to PTD benefits, a claimant must show an inability to do light duty work uninterruptedly due to physical limitations, or establish that he has conducted a lengthy and exhaustive job search that has proved futile.”
Establishes the two-part legal standard for PTD eligibility, either physical inability or exhaustive failed job search.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVickers, a claimant in a workers' compensation case, sought PTD benefits based on evidence of a severe but not totally disabling impairment and eviden…
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 Permanent Total Disability Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The claimant, Donald Vickers, appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims denying his claim for PTD benefits. The claimant argues that the appealed order is facially insufficient because the Judge failed to address the adequacy of his job search. Because the Judge denied the claimant’s claim for PTD benefits without addressing the adequacy of his job search efforts, we reverse and remand for further findings.
To establish entitlement to PTD benefits, a claimant must show an inability to do light duty work uninterruptedly due to physical limitations, or establish that he has conducted a lengthy and exhaustive job search that has proved futile. Fernandez v. City of Tampa, 656 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). In the present case, the claimant asserted that he was entitled to PTD benefits based upon evidence of a severe but not totally disabling impairment and evidence of a lengthy and exhaustive, but unsuccessful job search. The Judge of Compensation Claims’ determination that the claimant failed to establish that he is unable to perform light duty work uninterruptedly is supported by competent substantial evidence. Although the Judge of Compensation Claims recognized the correct legal standard for an award of PTD benefits, the order is nevertheless facially insufficient because it fails to address whether the claimant met his burden of proof through evidence of his job search.
Accordingly, the order of the Judge of Compensation Claims is REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED with instructions that the Judge of Compensation Claims address the adequacy of the claimant’s job search at it relates to his claim for PTD benefits.
KAHN, DAVIS and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Union Camp Corp. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hurst, 696 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…jury as defined in s. 440.02 shall, [*876] in the absence of conclusive proof of a substantial earning capacity, constitute permanent total disability.” Claimant has the burden of proving entitlement to PTD benefits. Vickers v. Emergency One, Inc., 680 So. 2d 1076, 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Liggon, 668 So. 2d 259, 264-265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Neither the claimant nor the JCC addressed the catastrophic injury requirement. Even the medical testimony improperly admitted and relied upon b…
-
Dodge v. Shaffie Mohammed, 692 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…a “catastrophic” injury, as defined in section 440.02(34), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). These amendments did not alter the basic concept that the burden of proving entitlement to PTD benefits is on the claimant. See Vickers v. Emergency One, Inc., 680 So. 2d 1076, 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Liggon, 668 So. 2d 259, 264-65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The claimant must prove every element of his claim, including the most basic element of a causal connection between his compensable injury and th…
Authorities Cited
- Fernandez v. City OF Tampa & Alexsis Risk Mgmt., Inc., 656 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)