INTERIM SERVICES AND SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, APPELLANTS,
v.
SUSAN LEVY, 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.
A workers' compensation claimant sought temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits following a 1997 work injury. The appellate court reversed the award of TPD benefits, holding that the claimant failed to demonstrate that her physical restrictions precluded performance of her prior job, despite evidence of an unsuccessful job search in North Carolina.
The court affirmed that the claimant had not reached maximum medical improvement and therefore was eligible for benefits, but reversed the TPD award because the claimant failed to demonstrate that her work restrictions precluded adequate performance of her prior job. The claimant's unsuccessful job search alone, without evidence that physical capabilities prevented performance of prior duties, does not establish the required causal connection for TPD benefits.
[1] A Judge of Compensation Claims' finding that a claimant has not reached maximum medical improvement is supported by competent substantial evidence if such evidence exists…
[2] A claimant must demonstrate a causal connection between their work injury and a subsequent wage loss to be entitled to temporary wage loss benefits.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 must show a causal connection between his or her injury and a subsequent wage loss before an award of temporary wage loss benefits is appropriate”
Establishes the fundamental requirement for TPD benefits that the claimant must satisfy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant sustained a work injury in 1997 but continued working until August 1998, when she relocated to North Carolina. She conducted a job search…
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 Causal Connection Between Injury And Wage Loss cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, J.
Appellant seeks review of an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) awarding temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits to the claimant for her compensable injury. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
The claimant was injured at work in 1997 but continued to work until August 1998, when she moved to North Carolina. Her job search in North Carolina, which included inquiry with a branch of her former employer, did not result in employment. The claimant filed a petition for benefits that resulted in an award of TPD for the 104 weeks following August 1998 evaluation and treatment by both a neurologist and psychiatrist, penalties and interest on all indemnity, and a denial of impairment and supplemental benefits as premature.
To the extent that Appellant alleges that the claimant was not entitled to benefits from August 1998 forward because she had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on September 4,1997, we hold that there was competent substantial evidence in the record to support the JCC’s finding that the claimant had not yet reached MMI. Chavarria v. Selugal Clothing, Inc., 840 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (en banc). However, we reverse in part the JCC’s order for another reason.
A claimant must show a causal connection between his or her injury and a subsequent wage loss before an award of temporary wage loss benefits is appropriate, and Appellant alleges that the claimant failed to meet this requirement. To determine whether an injury and a subsequent wage loss are causally connected, a JCC is to consider the totality of the circumstances. E.g., Betancourt v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 693 So. 2d 680, 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). An unsuccessful job search such as the claimant’s can be a factor in considering the totality of the circumstances as to the causal connection between the injury and wage loss. Barfield v. Universal Forest Prods., 813 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
However, the performance of a job search does not itself establish a causal relationship. Thompson v. City of Jacksonville, 654 So. 2d 1178, 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Generally, to establish such a causal relationship, a claimant can show that his or her capabilities preclude adequate performance of his or her prior job. Id.; Nickolls v. Univ. of Fla., 606 So. 2d 410, 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Burger King v. Nicholas, 580 So. 2d 656, 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Here, there has been no such showing.
In Betancourt, this Court held that the claimant’s work restrictions that prohibited heavy lifting supported an award of benefits where there was also evidence that the claimant’s job entailed lifting computers weighing 70 pounds. Betancourt, 693 So. 2d at 684. In the instant case, the work restriction accepted by the JCC required the claimant to avoid sitting for more than two hours at a time, avoid standing or walking for more than one hour at a time, avoid carrying or lifting more than 20 pounds, and avoid crouching, bending, stooping, crawling, or climbing.
However, there is no evidence that the claimant’s job, which included both desk work and “a fair amount of walking during the day,” would have required her to do tasks outside the scope of her restricted abilities. In fact, the evidence is clear that the claimant voluntarily terminated her employment for personal reasons after satisfactorily performing her job duties for 13 months following her injury.
Therefore, there is no competent substantial evidence that the claimant’s physical capabilities precluded adequate performance of her old job, and the JCC reversibly erred by awarding TPD benefits to claimant.
Accordingly, we REVERSE the JCC’s award of TPD benefits to the claimant for the 104 weeks following August 1998, AFFIRM the other aspects of the order, and REMAND for further proceedings.
DAVIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wyeth/Pharma Field Sales & Gallagher Bassett v. Toscano, 40 So. 3d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…shall be equal to 80 percent of the difference between 80 percent of the employee’s average weekly wage and the salary, wages, and other remuneration the employee is able to earn post-injury, as compared to weekly); see also Interim Servs. v. Levy, 843 So. 2d 915, 916-17 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding, to establish causal relationship between injury and wage loss, a claimant can show that her capabilities preclude adequate performance of her prior job); accord Thompson v. City of Jacksonville, 654 So. 2d 1178,…
-
Jovita Sanchez v. Wise Recycling, Inc., 843 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…PER CURIAM. In this workers’ compensation case, the claimant failed to show “a causal connection between ... her injury and ... subsequent wage loss.” Interim Servs. v. Levy, 843 So. 2d 915, 916, 2003 WL 366722 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb.21, 2003). Therefore, we AFFIRM the JCC’s denial of temporary benefits for the periods of March 13, 2000, through March 25, 2000, and April 16, 2000, through April 11, 2001. For the same reason, we find merit i…
-
Alie v. Crum Staffing, 41 So. 3d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…Arnold v. Florida’s Blood Ctrs., Inc., 949 So. 2d 242, 247 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“To be entitled to [TPD] benefits, ‘[a] claimant must show a causal connection between his or her injury and a subsequent wage loss.’ ”) (quoting Interim Servs. v. Levy, 843 So. 2d 915, 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)). However, once the E/C established an intervening cause for the claimant’s wage loss (ie., the termination of the claimant’s employment for cause unrelated to his injury), the causal chain was broken and the burden shifted…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Betancourt v. Sears Roebuck & Co. & Kemper Ins. Co., 693 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- A.M.V. v. State, 840 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Dejerez v. State, 580 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Nickolls v. Univ. OF Fla. & Div. of Risk Mgmt., 606 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Thompson v. City OF Jacksonville, 654 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Barfield v. Universal Forest Prods. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 813 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)