METROPOLITAN TITLE & GUARANTY CO., AND ZURICH-AMERICAN INSURANCE GROUP, APPELLANTS,
v.
ESTEVAN M. MUNIZ, 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.
Metropolitan Title & Guaranty Co. and Zurich-American Insurance Group appealed an award of permanent and total disability benefits to employee Estevan Muniz. The court reversed the permanent disability award, holding that a claimant must prove he has reached maximum medical improvement and obtained an impairment rating before becoming eligible for permanent disability benefits.
A claimant is not entitled to permanent disability benefits unless he proves he has reached maximum medical improvement and an impairment rating is assigned based on that date. The award of permanent and total disability benefits was reversed, though the temporary disability benefits award was affirmed.
[1] Permanent disability benefits are not awarded until a claimant proves they have reached maximum medical improvement.
[2] An impairment rating must be assigned based on the claimant's present or expected date of maximum medical improvement before permanent disability benefits can be awarded.
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“Until an impairment rating is assigned, based on the claimant's present or expected date of maximum medical improvement, he is not entitled to permanent disability benefits.”
Establishes the core legal requirement that maximum medical improvement and impairment rating must precede permanent disability benefits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEstevan Muniz sustained a workplace injury. The judge of compensation claims awarded him permanent and total disability benefits from the date of the …
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 Impairment Rating cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We ’ conclude that the award of permanent and total disability benefits must be reversed. Although the claimant proved that he sustained an injury that would qualify him for disability income benefits under the Social Security Act, he did not prove that he was at maximum medical improvement. Until an impairment rating is assigned, based on the claimant’s present or expected date of maximum medical improvement, he is not entitled to permanent disability benefits. See City of Pensacola Firefighters v. Oswald, 710 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Daws Manufacturing Co. v. Ostoyic, 756 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
The judge of compensation claims held that the claimant was presumed to be entitled to permanent total disability benefits from the date of the accident. She relied on our decision in Temporary Labor Source v. E.H., 765 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), but that case is distinguishable. In Temporary Labor Source, the workplace accident resulted in the amputation of the worker’s leg. The denial of benefits was based entirely on an assumption that the employer could defeat a claim for permanent benefits by proving that the employee could make effective use of a prosthetic device. We disagreed with that assumption as a matter of law, and concluded that' under section 440.15(1)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), in the absence of conclusive proof of a substantial earning capacity, the claimant was presumed to be permanently and totally disabled. We noted that no conclusive proof of the claimant’s substantial earning capacity was presented to the judge of compensation claims and remanded for a determination of the claimant’s entitlement to benefits under section 440.15.
We find no error in the judge’s award of temporary disability benefits or in any other aspect of the order. On remand, the claimant may present evidence that he has reached maximum medical improvement if that is the case. If that is not the case, and if temporary benefits have expired, the claimant may obtain an impairment rating and seek permanent total disability benefits based on a future date of maximum medical improvements under the procedure in Oswald.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
PADOVANO, BROWNING and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Westphal v. City OF ST. Petersburg/City OF ST. Petersburg Risk Mgmt., 122 So. 3d 440 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…d to meet her burden, as established in Oswald and Emanuel [v. David Piercy Plumbing, 765 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)], to show that she has reached psychiatric MMI.”) (first emphasis added, second in original); Metro. Title & Guar. Co. v. Muniz, 806 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) ("On remand, the claimant may present evidence that he has reached maximum medical improvement ... [but] if that is not the case, and if temporary benefits have expired, the claimant may obtain an impairment rating and seek perma…1 / 2
-
Rivendell OF FT. Walton & Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc. v. Petway, 833 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…iate benefits for Claimant’s compensable low back injury and the finding of her entitlement to psychiatric treatment and care under Dr. Doheny’s direction. We reverse, as premature, the award of PTD benefits. Metropolitan Title & Guar. Co. v. Muniz, 806 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Chan’s Surfside Saloon v. Provost, 764 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (reversing award of PTD benefits absent competent substantial evidence that claimant had reached psychiatric MMI or would remain permanently and totally. impa…
-
Matrix Emp. Leasing, Inc. v. Hadley, 78 So. 3d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…g., Fla. Transp.1982, Inc. v. Quintana, 1 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Olmo v. Rehabcare Stamted/SRS, 930 So. 2d at 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Rivendell of Ft. Walton v. Petway, 833 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Metro. Title & Guar. Co. v. Muniz, 806 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); McDevitt St. Bovis v. Rogers, 770 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Chan's Surfside Saloon v. Provost, 764 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Daws Mfg. Co. v. Ostoyic, 756 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Office Depot, Inc. v. Sweikat…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City OF Pensacola Firefighters & Fla. League of Cities v. Oswald, 710 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Temporary Labor Source v. E.H., 765 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Daws Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Ostoyic, 756 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)