HARPER MECHANICAL CORPORATION AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
FRED T. LANTRIP, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the court affirmed the Judge of Compensation Claims' ruling that the employer and insurer reasonably investigated the claim before accepting the employee as permanently totally disabled, but reversed regarding the determination of when the employee reached maximum medical improvement and remanded for proper calculation of PTD benefits from the correct MMI date.
The court affirmed that the employer and insurer reasonably investigated the claim before accepting PTD benefits. However, the court reversed the JCC's determination that PTD benefits should begin only from the date of the hearing, holding instead that once PTD is accepted, the employee is entitled to PTD benefits from the date of MMI, with temporary total disability payments credited against the PTD owed during the investigation period.
[1] Workers' compensation permanent total disability benefits may be withheld during a reasonable investigation into a claimant's ability to be rehabilitated and returned to…
[2] If permanent total disability benefits are withheld during a reasonable investigation, temporary benefits paid may be credited to permanent total disability benefits owed…
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 intelligence“if the e/c reasonably investigates whether a claimant can be rehabilitated and put to work, PTD benefits can be withheld during the investigation. However, the holding in Prestressed Decking further provides that if PTD benefits are withheld during a reasonable investigation, once the claimant is accepted as PTD, the payment of temporary benefits may be credited to PTD benefits owed from the date of MMI.”
Establishes the governing rule that temporary benefits must be credited from the date of MMI once PTD is accepted, not from the acceptance date.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee was injured during employment in March 1989 and initially received temporary total disability benefits. In January 1991, he sought permanent …
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 Total Disability Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
In this workers’ compensation appeal, we affirm the issue raised by Appellant. See Applegate Drywall Co. v. Patrick, 559 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). However, we find that the issue raised by the Appel-lee on cross appeal has merit.
Appellee was injured in the course and scope of his employment in March 1989. The employer and its workers’ compensation insurance carrier (e/c) paid temporary total disability benefits.
In January 1991, Appellee sought permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. A hearing was conducted on September 4, 1991. The e/c stipulated before the hearing that they accepted Appellee as PTD as of the date of the hearing. Appellee’s position was that he reached PTD a year earlier. The judge of compensation claims (JCC) accepted the parties’ stipulation that Appel-lee reached physical maximum medical improvement (MMI) on November 29, 1989, and psychiatric MMI on February 1, 1990. However, the JCC did not determine when Appellee reached overall MMI; he determined that PTD benefits should be paid as of the date of the hearing. He ruled that the e/c acted reasonably by thoroughly investigating the claim before accepting Ap-pellee as PTD.
The JCC’s order cites Prestressed Decking Corp. v. Medrano, 556 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), to support the proposition that if the e/c reasonably investigates whether a claimant can be rehabilitated and put to work, PTD benefits can be withheld during the investigation. However, the holding in Prestressed Decking further provides that if PTD benefits are withheld during a reasonable investigation, once the claimant is accepted as PTD, the payment of temporary benefits may be credited to PTD benefits owed from the date of MMI.
Accordingly, we remand for a determination of the date of MMI. See Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Carley, 427 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (affirming PTD award and remanding for date of MMI so parties would know when PTD benefits should begin); see also, John Barley Memorial v. Gillam, 550 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (date of PTD is not premature simply because claimant, who has reached physical MMI, has not reached psychiatric MMI). The e/c’s payments of temporary total disability benefits should then be credited to the PTD benefits owed from the date of MMI to the date of the hearing. Accord, Western Electric Co. v. Vickers, 450 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
BOOTH and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Elbert S. Carley, 427 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- John Barley Mem'l & Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. Gillam, 550 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Prestressed Decking Corp. & Travelers Ins. Co. v. Edgardo Medrano, 556 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Applegate Drywall Co. & Md. Cas. Co. v. Patrick, 559 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- W. Elec. Co. v. Vickers, 450 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)