ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES CO. AND SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, APPELLANTS,
v.
ANGEL SEPULVEDA, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the award of temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits to a workers' compensation claimant but reversed and remanded because the trial judge failed to determine the precise number of weeks of TPD benefits remaining after accounting for a mediation agreement and prior payments.
The claimant is entitled to temporary partial disability benefits, but the trial court must on remand determine the exact number of weeks remaining after accounting for the mediation agreement and prior indemnity payments.
[1] When an employer/carrier raises the statutory defense of prior payment of 104 weeks of temporary indemnity benefits under Fla. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA workers' compensation claimant sought temporary partial disability benefits. The employer/carrier had paid 66 weeks of temporary indemnity benefits …
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 Indemnity Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation case, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) awarding Claimant temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits not to exceed the statutory maximum of 104 weeks. We affirm the JCC’s finding of entitlement to TPD benefits for the periods requested because it is supported by competent substantial evidence. Because, however, the JCC failed to determine the number of weeks of TPD benefits for which the E/C remains hable, we reverse and remand for further findings.
The E/C raised the payment of 104 weeks of temporary indemnity benefits as a defense to Claimant’s request for additional TPD benefits. See § 440.15(4)(e), Fla. Stat. (2005). This defense was based, in part, on a mediation agreement between the parties wherein the E/C agreed to pay Claimant $7,750.00 in full and final satisfaction of all past indemnity benefits through the date of the agreement. Although the JCC found that the E/C paid a total of 66 weeks of temporary indemnity benefits, the JCC failed to specify whether the parties’ mediation agreement encompassed these 66 weeks or if the agreement represented some other, indeterminate number of weeks paid by the E/C. On remand, the JCC should determine the number of weeks of TPD benefits left to be paid by the E/C. In doing so, the JCC should interpret the parties’ mediation agreement and specify what effect, if any, the agreement had on the E/C’s defense. REVERSED and REMANDED for further findings.
WOLF, ROBERTS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.