BRENDA AMBURGEY, APPELLANT,
v.
PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AND CRAWFORD & CO., 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.
Brenda Amburgey challenged a workers' compensation order denying her temporary total disability and permanent total disability benefits. The court affirmed the denial but reversed and remanded because the judge failed to make sufficient findings regarding whether Amburgey knew or should have known she was released to return to work.
Evidence that a claimant is able to return to work is insufficient to deny temporary total disability benefits without evidence that the claimant was informed or should have known she was released to work. The judge of compensation claims must specifically state in the order whether benefits were denied based on the claimant's knowledge or imputed knowledge of clearance to resume work.
[1] Temporary total disability benefits may not be denied solely on evidence that the claimant is able to return to work without evidence that the claimant was informed or sh…
[2] A judge of compensation claims must specifically state in an order denying benefits whether the denial is based on the claimant's knowledge or imputed knowledge of a work…
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“evidence the claimant is able to return to work is not sufficient to deny temporary total disability benefits in the absence of evidence the claimant was informed or should have known that he or she was released to work”
Establishes the key principle that medical ability to work alone is insufficient; claimant must have knowledge or imputed knowledge of clearance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmburgey sought workers' compensation benefits after an injury. Several doctors testified that she was able to return to work, but there is no evidenc…
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 Claim For Workers' Compensation Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The claimant, Brenda Amburgey, challenges a final order of the judge of compensation claims denying her workers’ compensation benefits. We affirm the order in all respects except one. The order fails to contain sufficient findings to support the denial of temporary total disability and permanent total disability benefits.
Several doctors testified that the claimant was able to return to work during the period in which temporary benefits were claimed, but there is no evidence they advised the claimant of that fact. In a letter dated August 31, 1994, the employer advised the claimant that she should return to work. The claimant testified that the doctors did not give her clearance to return to work before September 18,1995.
This court has held consistently that, evidence the claimant is able to return to work is not sufficient to deny temporary total disability benefits in the absence of evidence the claimant was informed or should have known that he or she was released to work. See Charles v. Suwannee Swifty, 622 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Garcia-Vina v. U.S. Holiday Health and Recreation, 634 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Scotty’s v. Boles, 680 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). In Cocho v. Continental Baking, 648 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), we held that the judge of compensation claims must specifically state in the order that benefits were denied because the claimant knew or should have known that he could return to work. Otherwise, the appellate court has no way of knowing whether the judge of compensation claims relied only on a lack of medical evidence as to the claimant’s ability, on lack of work search, or instead on the claimant’s imputed knowledge of the clearance to resume work.
Because the order in the present case does not address the claimant’s knowledge or imputed knowledge of her ability to return to work, we are constrained to reverse, based strictly on Cocho. On remand, the judge of compensation claims shall determine whether the claimant knew that she was released to work and, if so, shall specifically state in the order whether he finds that benefits should be denied on this basis. The order is affirmed in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
BOOTH, BENTON and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pearson v. Paradise Ford & Comp Options Ins., 951 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…claimant’s disability, a claimant is nonetheless entitled to benefits if he has not been advised to return to work. Garcia-Vina v. U.S. Holiday Health and Recreation, 634 So. 2d 200, 201 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Amburgey v. Palm Beach County School Bd., 712 So. 2d 426, 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). While Dr. Munson did opine in his letter of December 4, 2004, that claimant could work light duty, there is no proof that this letter was received in time for claimant’s attorney to relay the information to claimant before…
-
Seminole Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Preferred Governmental Claim Solutions v. Candiss Tweedie, 922 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…aimant TTD benefits, the JCC properly relied upon claimant’s testimony that she was unable to work during the period in question and the fact that Dr. Rosen never advised her that she could return to work. See Amburgey v. Palm Beach County Sch. Bd., 712 So. 2d 426, 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“[E]vidence the claimant is able to return to work is not sufficient to deny temporary total disability benefits in the absence of evidence the claimant was informed or should have known that he or she was released to work.…
-
Campbell v. L & C Constr. & Am. Interstate Ins. Co., 869 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…nt substantial evidence establishing that appellant’s work [*709] status had changed on that date or at anytime prior to January 29, 2002. Thus TTD benefits should have been awarded until January 29, 2002. See Amburgey v. Palm Beach County Sch. Bd., 712 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (finding that evidence a claimant is able to return to work is not sufficient to deny TTD benefits absent evidence claimant was informed or should have known that he or she was released to work). We remand for the JCC to grant TT…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Charles v. Suwannee Swifty and Associated Risk, 622 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Garcia-Vina v. U.S. Holiday Health & Rec. & Aetna Ins. Co., 634 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Nelson-Higdon v. Higdon, 680 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Perfecto Cocho v. Cont'l Baking & Travelers Ins. Co., 648 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)