BOYLE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND CRUM & FORSTER INSURANCE COMPANIES, APPELLANTS,
v.
DAVID CLAY AND DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, 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 dismissed the appeal because the workers' compensation order was not a final appealable order, as wage-loss and rehabilitation benefit claims had not been finally adjudicated.
An order granting leave to file wage-loss benefit forms and directing rehabilitation evaluation is not a final appealable order.
[1] In workers' compensation proceedings, the burden is on the claimant to prove that wage loss is due to physical limitations from the compensable injury rather than economi…
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 intelligenceBoyle Construction and its insurer appealed an order in a workers' compensation case involving David Clay's claims for wage-loss and rehabilitation be…
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 Adjudication Of Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The order in this workers’ compensation case is not an appealable final order, and the appeal is dismissed on the court’s own motion.
The claim for wage-loss benefits has not been finally adjudicated since no wage-loss benefit forms have been filed by claimant; the order merely grants claimant leave to file such forms to perfect his claim. The order expressly declares that the claim for rehabilitation benefits is not ripe for adjudication and merely directs that claimant obtain a rehabilitation evaluation as a predicate to that determination.
Since it appears likely that these claims will be the subject of further proceedings before the deputy, we point out that the deputy’s order incorrectly recites that the burden is on the carrier to prove the affirmative defense that “the claimant’s lack of employment is due to the state of the economy, not to his compensable injury.” The applicable statute clearly places the burden on claimant to prove that the wage loss claimed is due to physical limitations related to the accident and not because of economic conditions or the unavailability of employment. § 440.-15(3)(b)(2), Fla.Stat. (1983); City of Clermont v. Rumph, 450 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
JOANOS, THOMPSON and ZEHMER, JJ., 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)