JAMES FINKE, APPELLANT,
v.
PASADENA YACHT & TENNIS CLUB AND ALEXSIS, 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.
James Finke appealed a workers' compensation decision denying him wage loss benefits for one week of a two-week period, arguing he was entitled to benefits for the entire period after demonstrating adequate work search in the first week. The court affirmed, holding that the judge of compensation claims has discretion to award or deny benefits on a weekly basis and that meeting the statutory minimum of five employer contacts does not guarantee benefits.
The court affirmed the denial of benefits for the second week. The judge of compensation claims has discretion to award or deny benefits on a weekly basis rather than only on biweekly increments, and meeting the statutory minimum of contacting five prospective employers does not guarantee entitlement to benefits as a matter of law.
[1] A judge of compensation claims' findings on the adequacy of a work search are factual findings that will be undisturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion.
[2] A claimant is not entitled to wage loss benefits as a matter of law merely by contacting the statutory minimum number of prospective employers in a biweekly period.
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“There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the factual finding that the claimant did not conduct a work search in the second week of the relevant period. We can not disturb that finding on appeal.”
Establishes the appellate standard of review for factual findings by the judge of compensation claims—such findings cannot be disturbed absent clear abuse of discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFinke sought wage loss benefits for a two-week period in 1994. During the first week, he conducted a good faith work search by contacting five prospec…
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 Good Faith Work Search cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
Claimant James Finke filed a petition for benefits seeking wage loss benefits for a two week period in 1994. The judge of compensation claims (hereinafter “JCC”) found that the claimant had conducted a good faith work search in the first of those two weeks, contacting five prospective employers.
Accordingly, the JCC awarded benefits for that week.
However, the JCC found, the claimant did not conduct any work search in the second week of the biweekly period.
Therefore she denied benefits for that week. Claimant has appealed that ruling, asserting that the JCC was required to award benefits for the entire two week period after finding that the claimant’s work search was adequate in the first week. The claimant also asserts that there was no competent substantial evidence to support the JCC’s determination that he had failed to conduct a work search in that second week.
We affirm.
There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the factual finding that the claimant did not conduct a work search in the second week of the relevant period. We can not disturb that finding on appeal. See Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Manning, 685 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Mercy Hospital v. Holmes, 679 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
The JCC’s “findings on the adequacy of a work search are factual findings and will go undisturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.” Lowe’s of Kissimmee v. Monroe, 536 So. 2d 303, 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). See also Hinds v. Orlando Concrete Contractors, 454 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). While the statutes establish that the claimant must, at a minimum, contact five prospective employers in a biweekly period, and submit biweekly job search reports, that does not guarantee that the claimant is entitled to benefits if he does so. See Korody v. Quality Steel, 694 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(rejecting argument that claimant was entitled as a matter of law to wage loss benefits in periods during which he contacted six prospective employers).
Having found no authority for the claimant’s proposition that the JCC is obligated as a matter of law to award or decline to award wage loss benefits in two week increments, we conclude that it was within the discretion of the JCC to decline to award benefits for the week in which the claimant conducted no work search.
Accordingly, this case is AFFIRMED.
KAHN and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Manning, 685 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Mercy Hosp. & Multiline Claims Serv., Inc. v. Holmes, 679 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Gideon Hinds v. Orlando Concrete Contractors & Reliance Ins. Co., 454 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Myrle F. Belin v. Colin Mitchel, 679 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Korody v. Quality Steel & Claims Ctr., 694 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Lowe's OF Kissimmee & Nat'l Union Fire Ins. v. Monroe, 536 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)