HERIBERTO OLAVARRIA, APPELLANT,
v.
OKEELANTA CORPORATION AND ALEXSIS, INC., N/K/A RSKCO, 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.
An injured worker appealed the denial of permanent total disability and wage loss benefits following a workplace injury. The appellate court affirmed the denial of permanent total disability but reversed the denial of wage loss benefits for three specific periods, finding that the employer's job offer was not within the worker's medical restrictions until May 1997.
The court affirmed the denial of permanent total disability benefits because Olavarria's unexplained refusal of suitable employment offered in May 1997 is inconsistent with such a claim. However, the court reversed the denial of wage loss benefits for the three disputed periods because the employer's own expert testimony established that the employment offered was not within Olavarria's medical restrictions prior to May 1997.
[1] A claimant's unexplained refusal of a specific offer of suitable employment available in the open labor market is inconsistent with permanent total disability.
[2] An appellate court is bound by a trial court's findings of fact when competent substantial evidence of record furnishes substantial support for those findings.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A claimant's unexplained refusal of a specific offer of suitable employment available in the open labor market is inconsistent with permanent total disability.”
Establishes the legal standard for permanent total disability claims when employment is offered
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHeriberto Olavarria was injured while working for Okeelanta Corporation on January 6, 1993. He suffered serious injuries that led to restrictions on t…
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 Suitable Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
BENTON, J.
Heriberto Olavarria, who was injured while working for Okeelanta Corporation (Okeelanta) on January 6, 1993, appeals a final order denying his claims for permanent total disability and wage loss benefits. We affirm the final order insofar as it denies the claim for permanent total disability benefits. We reverse the final order, however, insofar as it denies wage loss benefits for the periods from September 26, 1996, through October 9, 1996; from November 21, 1996, through December 4, 1996; and from January 3, 1997, through January 30,1997.
Competent substantial evidence supports the finding the judge of compensation claims made that a job Okeelanta offered in and after May of 1997 did not constitute sheltered employment. See Cooper v. Escambia County Sch. Bd., 734 So. 2d 1072, 1073 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Liggon, 668 So. 2d 259, 271-72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
Even though we might have reached a different result if the facts had been for us to find, we are bound by contrary findings for which competent evidence of record furnishes substantial support. See Chicken ‘N’ Things v. Murray, 329 So. 2d 302, ,304 (Fla.1976) (“We decline petitioner's invitation to interject ourselves at random as the primary finder of fact in workmen’s compensation cases”).
See also Commercial Carrier Corp. v. LaPointe, 723 So. 2d 912, 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
A claimant’s unexplained refusal of a specific offer of suitable employment available in the open labor market is inconsistent with permanent total disability. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 668 So. 2d at 264-65; Shaw v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 609 So. 2d 683, 685-86 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Okeelanta and Alexis conceded that, for the periods of September 26, 1996, through October 9, 1996; November 21, 1996, through December 4, 1996; and January 3,1997, through January 30, 1997, Mr. Olavarria submitted timely requests for wage loss benefits. See § 440.15(3)(b)2, Fla. Stat. (1993) (requiring submission within fourteen days of each biweekly period of wage loss); Turner v. Rinker Materials, 622 So. 2d 80, 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). His industrial accident caused serious injuries that led to restrictions on the kind of work he could perform.
Although the judge of compensation claims found that Okeelanta had offered Mr. Olavarria employment within his medical restrictions for the aforementioned periods, see § 440.15(3)(b)5 b, Fla. Stat. (1993), the record does not support this finding. Okeelanta’s own vocational ex pert testified that, until the original offer of employment was significantly modified in May of 1997, the employment Okeelanta offered was not within Mr. Olavarria’s medical restrictions. Specifically, Okee-' lanta’s expert testified that “[the employment] was totally inappropriate for [Mr. Olavarria] until this modification.” The record contains no evidence that Mr. Ola-varria refused any offer of suitable employment before May of 1997. The judge of compensation claims erred in denying wage loss benefits for the periods in question, all of which were prior to the modification.
The denial of the claim for permanent total disability benefits is affirmed. The denial of wage loss benefits for the periods September 26, 1996, through October 9, 1996; November 21,1996, through December 4, 1996; and January 3, 1997, through January 30,1997, is reversed.
BARFIELD, C.J., and WEBSTER, J., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Singletary v. Yoder's & Ameritrust Ins. Corp., 871 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…e 120-day period had expired that gave it additional reason to doubt that the injury was job-related. Even so, we must affirm the denial of benefits because “competent evidence of record furnishes substantial support,” Olavarria v. Okeelanta Corp., 741 So. 2d 1249, 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), for the JCC’s finding that “[cjlaimant knowingly made false or misleading oral and written statements for the purpose of obtaining benefits.” In her order, the JCC found that the claim should be denied in its entirety [be…
-
European Marble Co. & CNA Ins. v. Robinson, 885 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…ce, that the work-related injury ‘was occasioned primarily by the intoxication of the employee’”) (citations omitted). Thus, “[e]ven though we might have reached a different result if the facts had been for us to find,” Olavarria v. Okeelanta Corp., 741 So. 2d 1249, 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); see also Fla. Mining & Materials v. Mobley, 649 So. 2d 934, 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“[A] ruling which is supported by competent substantial evidence will be upheld even though there may be some persuasive evidence to the…
-
Advanced Masonry Sys. & the PMA Ins. Grp. v. Sarafin Molina, 4 So. 3d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…oo much pain to attend employment interviews or to search for employment is insufficient to override medical evidence that he is capable of working. See Paradyne Corp. v. Selmer, 527 So. 2d 285, 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Olavarria v. Okeelanta Corp., 741 So. 2d 1249, 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (explaining that “[a] claimant’s unexplained refusal of a specific offer of suitable employment available in the open labor market is inconsistent with permanent total disability”). Here, the EMA determined Claimant could…
Authorities Cited
- Chicken'n'things & Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Martha Murray & the Fla. Dep't of Commerce, 329 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1976)
- Dep't of Prof'l Reg. v. Davis, 622 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Liggon, 668 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Commercial Carrier Corp. & Comcar Indus., Inc. v. LaPOINTE, 723 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Shaw v. Publix Supermarkets, 609 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Cooper v. Escambia Cnty. Sch. Bd., 734 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)