CURLEY L. MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
LEON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND AMERICAN LIBERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Miller's appeal of a denial of wage loss benefits was affirmed because he failed to demonstrate that his inability to obtain employment was due to physical limitations from his accident rather than economic conditions or job unavailability, as required by Florida Statute Section 440.15(3)(b)2.
A claimant seeking wage loss benefits must prove that his inability to obtain employment is due to physical limitations related to his accident, not economic conditions or job unavailability.
[1] To qualify for wage loss benefits under Florida Statute Section 440.15(3)(b)2, a claimant must prove that inability to obtain employment results from physical limitations…
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 intelligenceMiller, injured in a 1981 accident, appealed a deputy commissioner's denial of wage loss benefits. His work search evidence showed only that prospecti…
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 Claim For Wage Loss Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
NIMMONS, Judge.
Miller appeals from an order of the deputy commissioner denying wage loss benefits. We affirm on the grounds that Miller failed to show that his inability to obtain employment was “due to physical limitation related to his accident and not because of economic conditions or the unavailability of employment” as required by Section 440.15(3)(b)2, Florida Statutes (1983). The work search evidence presented by the claimant showed only that the prospective employers contacted by the claimant were not hiring. Unlike the situation in the recent case of City of Clermont v. Rumph, 450 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), there is no indication from the record that the claimant’s physical impairment was a factor in his rejection by such employers.
Also without merit are the appellant’s assertions (1) that the deputy erred in applying the 1983 amendment (Chapter 83-305, Laws of Florida) of Section 440.-15(3)(b)2 to the instant case which involves a 1981 accident, see City of Clermont v. Rumph, supra; and (2) that Section 440.-15(3)(b)2, being procedural in nature, imper-missibly encroaches upon the Florida Supreme Court’s rule-making authority, cf. Farrell v. Amica Mutual Insurance Co., 361 So. 2d 408 (Fla.1978).
AFFIRMED,
ERVIN, C.J., and JOANOS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- City OF Clermont & Aetna Ins. Co. v. Rumph, 450 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Edmond J. Farrell, III v. AMICA Mut. Ins. Co. & Am. Mut. Liab. Co. & Indus. Relations Comm'n, 361 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1978)