THE COCA-COLA COMPANY-FOODS DIVISION, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL LUCIEN, 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.
The court held that the deputy commissioner's award of temporary total disability and permanent partial disability benefits was not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Appellee injured his foot, shoulder, and back in a work-related accident. He did not work for an extended period but failed to present evidence that h…
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 Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
Appellant, employer/carrier, appeals from the deputy commissioner’s award to appellee of temporary total disability benefits from August 1978 to February 1979 and 25% permanent partial disability benefits thereafter, based on loss of wage-earning capacity. Competent substantial evidence does not support the deputy commissioner’s award. We reverse.
In January 1977, appellee injured his right foot, right shoulder and back in a work-related accident while employed by appellant as a fruit picker. According to the record, except for a two-week period in May 1978, appellee did not work again until February 1979. However, no evidence in the record indicates that he was temporarily totally disabled during the period from August 1978 to February 1979. We, therefore, reverse the deputy commissioner’s award of temporary total disability benefits for that period.
The record shows that appellee did conduct an extensive job search, visiting at least 27 potential employers in an effort to obtain work. His own testimony revealed, however, that most of those potential employers had no job openings. Appellee also testified that he did not inform many of his potential employers of his disability, thereby indicating that his disability was not the reason for not obtaining employment in those instances. Further, many of the jobs appellee sought were in areas in which he had no experience. In view of those facts, appellee failed to meet his burden of establishing that his inability to obtain a job was due to his disability. Therefore, the deputy commissioner’s finding of a 25% loss of wage-earning capacity was error. Compare Florida Division of Corrections v. Morgan, 382 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
REVERSED.
SMITH, J., and LILES, WOODIE A., (Retired) Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Regency INN v. Johnson, 422 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…employee.12 The order appealed from is AFFIRMED. ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and McCORD, MILLS, ERVIN, BOOTH, LARRY G. SMITH, SHIVERS, SHAW, WENT-WORTH, JOANOS, THOMPSON and WIG-GINTON, JJ., concur. . Coca-Cola Company — Foods Division v. Luden, 399 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), discussed in oral argument in the present case, illustrates the impact of evidence concerning job availability as it relates to the adequacy of a work search. Coca-Cola is not a 1979 wage loss case, however, and although the lac…
-
Fla. Mining & Minerals & Whiting Nat'l Servs., Inc. v. Foster Brantley, 418 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…b because of his disability, such direct proof of this essential element has not been required by prior decisions of this court. See, for example, Lehigh Corp. v. Byrd, 397 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Coca-Cola Company—Foods Division v. Lucien, 399 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); and Palm Beach Newspapers Inc. v. Roston, 404 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). This court alluded to the inherent difficulties in obtaining direct evidence showing the specific reason for rejection by an employer in Flesche v. In…
Authorities Cited
- Florida Division OF Corrections v. Morgan, 382 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)