ROBERT LEE BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
RACE & RACE AND FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. OF NEW YORK, APPELLEES
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 order denying permanent total disability benefits was unclear and lacked sufficient basis in the record.
[1] An appellate court must reverse and remand an order when the record or order does not clearly indicate the basis for the deputy commissioner's decision regarding permanen…
[2] Evidence of an extensive work search by a claimant can shift the burden to the employer/carrier to demonstrate available work the claimant is capable of performing.
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 intelligenceThe claimant appealed an order assigning a 35% permanent partial disability rating, arguing he was permanently and totally disabled based on loss of w…
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 (Ppd) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The claimant Brown appeals an order of the deputy commissioner assigning a 35% permanent partial disability (PPD) rating based on loss of wage earning capacity. Claimant contends that the evidence compels a finding that he is permanently and totally disabled (PTD) based on his loss of wage earning capacity. From the record before us we are unable to determine the basis for the order which rejects that contention and concludes that claimant, due to “impairment, . . . age, education, work history, and marketable skills,” is now “capable of obtaining and holding . . . sedentary minimum wage level employment.” We therefore reverse and remand for reconsideration of that issue.
In support of his position, claimant points to his extensive work search and correctly argues that such evidence has been found sufficient to shift the burden to the employer/carrier (E/C) to demonstrate that there is work available which the claimant is capable of doing. Mahler v. Lauderdale Lakes National Bank, 322 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1975). Since no such evidence was produced by the E/C, claimant asserts that he is entitled to PTD benefits.
However, in this case the evidence in support of the claim for total loss of earning capacity clearly required the deputy to evaluate the credibility of claimant’s testimony. Even though that testimony as to subjective symptoms as well as inability to get employment was uncontroverted, the deputy could of course reject it in whole or in part. Tatum v. Leon Moss Dairy, 339 So. 2d 639 (Fla.1976). If the record or order contained any indication that the deputy doubted the good faith of claimant’s evidence of unemployability and the debilitating effects of his injuries, we would be inclined to affirm the award. John Caves Land Development Co. v. Suggs, 352 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1977). Absent any such finding or inference, the case is remanded with instructions to the deputy to clarify or reconsider the denial of compensation for permanent disability in excess of 35% based on the existing record.
MILLS, WENTWORTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCANDLESS v. M.M. Parrish Constr. & Corporate Grp. Serv., Inc., 449 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…a result of his accident, subsequent surgery, and resulting continued pain. The deputy commissioner, as trier of fact, may judge the credibility of witnesses appearing before him and reject their testimony in whole or in part. Brown v. Race & Race, 413 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). It is also true that, under certain circumstances, a deputy commissioner can rely upon lay testimony even if it directly conflicts with medical testimony. Magic City Bottle & Supply Co. v. Robinson, 116 So. 2d 240 (Fla.1959).1 I…
Authorities Cited
- Mahler v. Lauderdale Lakes Nat'l Bank, 322 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1975)
- John Caves Land Dev. Co. v. Suggs, 352 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1977)
- Tatum v. Leon Moss Dairy, 339 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1976)