AARON CARROLL, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND CRAWFORD & COMPANY, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Voluntary Limitation Of Income cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Aaron Carroll, appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”) denying his claim for wage loss benefits based upon his failure to conduct an adequate and good faith job search. Appel-lees, South Florida Management District and Crawford & Company, concede that the JCC erred in denying wage loss benefits for the August 20, 1993, through September 2, 1993, biweekly period because the appellant commenced work on August 24, 1993, and there was no evidence that the appellant voluntarily limited his income in accepting that employment. Both parties further agree that appellant earned $132.50 during the second week of the biweekly period, rather than $72.50 as reported on the wage loss form. We have examined the remaining issues raised in the appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we reverse that part of the JCC’s order which denies wage loss benefits for the August 20,1993, through September 2,1993, period. The JCC’s order is affirmed in all other respects.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED for further proceedings.
BARFIELD, KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brascom v. Gen. Furniture Leasing & Risk Enter. Mgmt., 717 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…the notes and/or tapes of the final hearing in this cause have been misplaced and the court reporter is unable to prepare a transcript. Further, the parties and the JCC are unable to prepare a statement of evidence. See Bay Medical Center v. Haynes, 667 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a hearing de novo. Arnold Lumber Co. v. Harris, 469 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). REVERSED. ERVIN, BOOTH and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.…
-
L.F. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 795 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…is entitled to have that record before us. Through no fault of her own, it is unavailable. Because of the circumstances of the mother, we do not find it necessary to remand for an attempt to reconstruct the record. Cf. Bay Medical Center v. Haynes, 667 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The better solution, we believe, is to remand for a new hearing. REVERSED and REMANDED for a new adjudicatory hearing. COBB, and PETERSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Kaufman v. Walgreens and Lloyd, 817 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…can be prepared and that efforts to reconstruct the evidence have been unsuccessful. We must therefore reverse and remand the cause for a hearing de novo. Arnold Lumber Co. v. Harris, 469 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Bay Medical Center v. Haynes, 667 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). It is noted that the order on appeal also awarded a fee to the law firm of Lloyd, Hoskins & Pierce, P.A., which did not appeal or join in Kaufman’s appeal. Accordingly, that portion of the order is affirmed. AFFIRMED IN PART A…