CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. AND ALEXSIS, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
KAREN MANNING, 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 a workers' compensation appeal, employers challenged a permanent total disability (PTD) award, arguing competent substantial evidence supported part-time sedentary work capability and lack of good faith job search. The court affirmed the award and sanctioned appellants for raising a frivolous issue that failed to meet the applicable standard of appellate review.
The court affirmed the PTD award and found the employers' appellate argument frivolous. The court held that under the applicable standard of review in workers' compensation cases, the proper question is whether competent substantial evidence supports the decision below, not whether contradictory evidence could be cited to support rejected arguments.
[1] Appellate review of workers' compensation decisions is limited to whether competent substantial evidence supports the decision below.
[2] An argument for reversal in a workers' compensation case that relies on contradictory record evidence rejected by the lower tribunal is insufficient.
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“Once again we remind counsel of the basic premise that the standard of review in workers' compensation cases is whether competent substantial evidence supports the decision below, not whether it is possible to recite contradictory record evidence which supported the arguments rejected below.”
Establishes the controlling standard of appellate review in workers' compensation cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA claimant (Karen Manning) received a PTD award from a Judge of Compensation Claims. The employer and carrier contested this award, asserting that com…
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 employer and earner (E/C) raise one point in this workers’ compensation appeal: “Whether the Judge of Compensation Claims erred in awarding PTD benefits in light of competent substantial evidence for part time sedentary work capabilities and lack of good faith job search effort.” In appellants’ summary of the argument they state: “It is the E/C’s contention the JCC erred in awarding the permanent total disability benefits in light of competent substantial evidence to indicate there was part time sedentary work potentially available and within the claimant’s capabilities, but for the lack of a good faith job search efforts.”
The point on appeal, and the argument advanced in support, could never support reversal in a workers’ compensation case. “Once again we remind counsel of the basic premise that the standard of review in workers’ compensation cases is whether competent substantial evidence supports the decision below, not whether it is possible to recite contradictory record evidence which supported the arguments rejected below.” Mercy Hosp. v. Holmes, 679 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Given the E/C’s choice of an issue on appeal we must, once again, direct counsel’s attention to the leading case of Swcmigan v. Dobbs House and its admonition, “The point on appeal ... as stated by appellant, is self defeating under applicable standards of appellate review.” 442 So. 2d 1026, 1027 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Swanigan, in uncomplicated terms, explains our standard of review, and should be required reading for any lawyer who desires to handle workers’ compensation appeals. Here, appellants’ mere assertion that their view of the case is supported by competent substantial evidence is frivolous.
We AFFIRM and GRANT appellee’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees. The Judge of Compensation Claims will set an appropriate amount.
BARFIELD, C.J., and ERVIN and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Commercial Carrier Corp. & Comcar Indus., Inc. v. LaPOINTE, 723 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…he conclusion reached by the judge of compensation claims depends on findings supported by competent substan [*918] tial evidence in the record, we must affirm, even if there is evidence to the contrary. See, e.g., Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Manning, 685 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Finally, CCC and Comear contend that the night watchman’s job was not sheltered employment as a matter of law because “pervasive federal law now requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for their disabled employees.…
-
Jefferson v. Wayne Dalton Corporation/Hartford, 793 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…on 440.12(1), Florida Statutes (2000). The standard of review in workers’ compensation cases is whether there is competent substantial evidence to support the ruling of the judge of compensation claims. See, e.g., Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Manning, 685 So. 2d 64, 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Traditionally, however, a judge of compensation claims must make findings of fact that justify his decision. It is the function of the judge of compensation claims to determine the credibility of the witnesses and resolve co…
-
Frederick v. United Airlines & Alexsis, Inc., 688 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…en, 654 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); [*414] Johnson v. Martin Paving, 659 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Wilson v. School Board of Palm Beach County, 660 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). As we recently noted in Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Manning, 685 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), the standard of review for factual determinations in workers’ compensation cases is whether competent substantial evidence supports the JCC’s finding, not whether the record contains evidence which could be interpreted to suppor…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Swanigan v. Dobbs House & Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 442 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Mercy Hosp. & Multiline Claims Serv., Inc. v. Holmes, 679 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Myrle F. Belin v. Colin Mitchel, 679 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)