ISAIAH STANLEY, PETITIONER,
v.
MASTER MASONRY CONSTRUCTION, INC., EMPLOYER, HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, CARRIER, AND THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS
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.
Isaiah Stanley petitioned for certiorari after the Industrial Relations Commission affirmed a finding that he had a 60% permanent partial disability rather than permanent total disability. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that where competent evidence shows a stable labor market matching the claimant's abilities is unlikely to exist, the burden shifts to the employer-carrier to prove employment is available; absent such proof, permanent total disability must be found.
The Court held that the evidence supported a finding of permanent total disability, not permanent partial disability. Where competent substantial evidence shows a reasonably stable labor market commensurate with the claimant's ability to perform is unlikely to exist, the burden shifts to the employer-carrier to demonstrate that some form of employment is within the claimant's reach; absent such proof, permanent total disability must be found.
[1] Where competent substantial evidence supports a finding that a reasonably stable labor market commensurate with a claimant's abilities is unlikely to exist, the employer…
[2] A judge of industrial claims errs as a matter of law by failing to find a claimant permanently and totally disabled when the employer fails to present evidence of availab…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“where there exists competent substantial evidence to warrant a finding that a reasonably stable labor market commensurate with claimant's ability to perform is unlikely to exist, it is incumbent upon the employer-carrier to show that some form of employment is in fact within reach of the claimant in order to obviate a determination that the claimant was permanently and totally disabled”
Establishes the legal standard requiring burden-shifting to employer-carrier once evidence shows no stable market exists for claimant's abilities
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIsaiah Stanley suffered a back injury during employment at Master Masonry Construction, Inc. He was treated by his physician, Dr. F. DeWitt Stanford, …
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 Permanent Partial Disability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner-claimant Isaiah Stanley has petitioned this Court for writ of certiorari to the Department of Commerce, Industrial Relations Commission.
Petitioner suffered a back injury while in the course of employment of Master Masonry Construction, Inc. He was treated by Dr. F. DeWitt Stanford for his injury for several months and was released with the opinion of the doctor that he had reached maximum medical improvement, and had incurred a 15 per cent permanent partial disability of the body as a whole.
Petitioner sought permanent total disability benefits before the Judge of Industrial Claims. A hearing was held before said Judge and the following witnesses were among those who testified in behalf of Petitioner:
(a) Petitioner’s treating physician, Dr. F. DeWitt Stanford, whose limitations on the Petitioner’s functions virtually eliminated him from the manual labor market.
(b) A clinical psychologist, who evaluated Petitioner’s limited mental capacity.
(c) The owner of a job placement agency, who contacted approximately 65 different companies in an attempt to find Petitioner a job, all to no avail. He stated that in his opinion a man with Petitioner’s physical and mental limitations is unemployable in the central Florida area.
The Judge of Industrial Claims found that Petitioner had a permanent partial disability rating of 60 per cent of the body as whole. Petitioner appealed this order to the Industrial Relations Commission which affirmed the finding of the Judge of Industrial Claims.
Petitioner contends there is no competent substantial evidence to support the Judge of Industrial Claims’ finding that Petitioner was not permanently and totally disabled. Furthermore, Petitioner urges that both the Judge of Industrial Claims and the Industrial Relations Commission ignored the mandates set down by this Court in Johnson v. Braisington-Cadillac Oldsmobile, Inc., 265 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1972), and Gibson v. Minute Maid Corp., 251 So. 2d 260 (Fla.1971). To this we agree.
Both the Johnson and Gibson cases hold that where there exists competent substantial evidence to warrant a finding that a reasonably stable labor market commensurate with claimant’s ability to perform is unlikely to exist, it is incumbent upon the employer-carrier to show that some form of employment is in fact within reach of the claimant in order to obviate a determination that the claimant was permanently and totally disabled.
The record in the case establishes the fact that there was competent substantial evidence to warrant a finding that a reasonably stable labor market commensurate with claimant’s ability to perform regular employment is very unlikely to exist. The employer-carrier in the case sub judice did not present any testimony to show that some form of regular employment is within the reach of the claimant. Therefore, both the Judge of Industrial Claims and the Industrial Relations Commission were in error as a matter of law in not finding that the claimant [Petitioner] was permanently and totally disabled.
We find no basis in the evidence for a finding that Petitioner has a permanent partial disability rating of 60 per cent of the body as a whole. The evidence only supports a finding of permanent and total disability. The Judge of Industrial Claims had no basis upon which to find a lesser percentage of disability. He did it without evidentiary support, apparently on speculation.
Accordingly, the orders of the Judge of Industrial Claims and the Industrial Relations Commission are quashed with direc tion that an appropriate order be entered finding that Petitioner is permanently and totally disabled.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tillman Wright v. Gulf & W. Food Prods. & Risk Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 401 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 1981)…y demonstrates that some effort was made to obtain employment within the claimant’s physical limitations, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that suitable work is in fact available. Accord, Stanley v. Master Masonry Construction, Inc., 287 So. 2d 67 (Fla.1973), wherein we held that it is incumbent upon an employer to show some form of employment within reach of a claimant to obviate a determination of permanent total disability. In the instant case, the record demonstrates that claimant made n…
-
Florida Division OF Corrections v. Morgan, 382 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…to present evidence showing some work was available which was within claimant’s capabilities. See Ross v. Roy, 234 So. 2d 99 (FIa.1970); Port Everglades Terminal Co. v. Canty, 120 So. 2d 596 (Fla.1960); Stanley v. Master Masonry Construction, Inc., 287 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1973); Hogan v. Central Sand Company, 141 So. 2d 576 (Fla.1962). The above cases generally state that once a claimant proves he can perform only services limited in quantity, dependability or quality, the burden shifts to the employer to show…
Authorities Cited
- Gibson v. Minute Maid Corp., 251 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1971)
- Johnson v. Brasington-Cadillac Oldsmobile, 265 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1972)