TERRY VAUGHN, APPELLANT,
v.
MOYLE PETROLEUM COMPANY AND FIREMAN'S FUND, 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 affirmed the denial of workers' compensation benefits for emotional disorder lacking impact or trauma, but reversed and remanded to consider whether the employer's promises regarding counseling payment and wage continuation constituted estoppel.
An employer's promises to authorize and pay for counseling and maintain wages during treatment may constitute estoppel even when an emotional disorder claim fails on the impact-trauma requirement.
[1] An employer's promises to authorize and pay for counseling and maintain an employee's wages during treatment may constitute estoppel in workers' compensation proceedings…
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 intelligenceClaimant sought workers' compensation benefits for an emotional disorder. The employer and its insurer made promises to the claimant and a health care…
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 Compensability cases and more on FLexlaw
. WIGGINTON, Judge.
We affirm the Judge of Compensation Claims’ order finding that claimant did not suffer an impact or trauma which would lead to the compensability of his emotional disorder. Cf. Polk Nursery Company, Inc. v. Riley, 433 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). However, the record evidence establishes a number of promises made by the employer to claimant and to a health care provider that it was authorizing and would pay for counseling, and would be responsible for claimant’s pay for the time he was off work to receive this counseling. Accordingly, we remand this cause to the JCC to consider the issue of estoppel.1 See, e.g., LaFave v. Bay Consolidated Distributors, 546 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Irigoyen v. Aircraft Services, Inc., 544 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Chemco Electric Supply, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 475 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
AFFIRMED, in part, REVERSED, in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SHIVERS and BARFIELD, JJ„ concur. . After considering the entire record, we conclude that this issue was sufficiently raised before the JCC. Neither in their brief, nor at oral argument in this cause did the E/C argue that the issue of estoppel was not raised below.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Polk Nursery Co., Inc. v. Riley, 433 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Lafave v. BAY Consol. Distribs., 546 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Chemco Elec. Supply, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 475 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Irigoyen v. Aircraft Servs., Inc., 544 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)