SANDVIK, INC. & SENTRY CLAIMS SERVICE, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOSEPH DECOURSEY, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's award of temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits to the claimant and upheld the denial of costs to the employer/carrier, finding that the employer failed to prove its affirmative defense regarding the claimant's job search efforts during most of the claimed period.
The court affirmed the award of TPD benefits and the denial of the employer/carrier's claim for costs, holding that the employer/carrier did not sufficiently prevail on its affirmative defenses to warrant an award of costs under Florida Statute section 440.34.
[1] A Judge of Compensation Claims' decision to deny costs is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion.
[2] An employer/carrier must prove its affirmative defenses in a workers' compensation case to be entitled to costs.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Except for proving the Claimant voluntarily limited his income for the five-day period from December 17, 2008, through December 22, 2008, the E/C failed to meet its burden. Indeed, the E/C wholly failed to prove that the Claimant did not seek appropriate employment during the claimed period.”
Establishes that the employer/carrier's failure to prove most of its affirmative defense prevented it from recovering costs despite limited success on one element
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant sought TPD benefits from December 17, 2008, through April 4, 2009. The Judge of Compensation Claims awarded TPD benefits for all but five…
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 Prevailing Party Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
In this worker’s compensation appeal, the Employer/Carrier (“E/C”) challenges an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”) awarding the Claimant temporary partial disability (“TPD”) benefits, granting the Claimant’s request for attorney’s fees and costs, and denying the E/C’s claim for costs. We affirm the award of TPD benefits without further discussion. For the reasons briefly set forth below, we also find no abuse of dis-ci-etion by the JCC in denying the E/C’s claim for costs. See Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Ofc. v. Hilsman, 23 So.3d 743, 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (JCC’s decision to deny costs generally reviewed for abuse of discretion).
The Claimant in this case sought TPD benefits from December 17, 2008, through April 4, 2009. The JCC granted the claim for all but five days of that period — December 17, 2008, through December 22, 2008 — because the evidence showed the Claimant voluntarily reduced his income during that time. The E/C argues that because it prevailed on its affirmative defense as to those five days, it is entitled to an award of costs under section 440.34(3), Florida Statutes. We disagree.
Pursuant to the parties’ pretrial stipulation, the only issue before the JCC was the Claimant’s entitlement to TPD benefits. The E/C’s affirmative defenses were that during the entire three-and-a-half month period at issue, the Claimant voluntarily limited his income by refusing light duty employment within his physical restrictions and failed to look for any other employment. At trial, the E/C had the burden of proving its affirmative defenses. See, e.g., Myers v. Hillsborough County Sch. Bd., 911 So.2d 851, 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Except for proving the Claimant voluntarily limited his income for the five-day period from December 17, 2008, through December 22, 2008, the E/C failed to meet its burden. Indeed, the E/C wholly failed to prove that the Claimant did not seek appropriate employment during the claimed period. Under these circumstances, we cannot say the JCC abused her discretion in denying the E/C’s claim for prevailing party costs under section 440.34, Florida Statutes.
AFFIRMED.
WOLF, LEWIS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hillsborough Cnty. Sheriff's Off. & N. Am. Risk Servs. v. Roseanne Hilsman, 23 So. 3d 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Moore v. State, 911 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Myers v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Rskco, 911 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)