JISLAINE PYRAM, APPELLANT,
v.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL AND MARRIOTT CASUALTY CLAIMS, 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.
This workers' compensation appeal addresses whether an employee must establish an injury by objective medical findings and whether an employee can recover temporary partial disability benefits after refusing suitable work. The court affirmed the Judge of Compensation Claims' denial of compensability and temporary partial disability benefits.
The court held that section 440.09(1) imposes a burden of proof on workers' compensation claimants rather than creating an affirmative defense for employers, and that the JCC properly denied compensability because claimant failed to establish an injury by objective medical findings. The court also held that the JCC properly denied temporary partial disability benefits because claimant refused suitable work without justification.
[1] A workers' compensation claimant must establish an injury to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and by objective medical findings.
[2] The statutory requirement for objective medical findings in workers' compensation claims imposes a standard of proof on the claimant, not an affirmative defense for the e…
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“By its use of the phrase 'shall be established,' the Legislature has given a quite clear signal that the statute devolves upon workers' compensation claimants a new standard of proof, rather than providing employers with an affirmative defense.”
Establishes that section 440.09(1) creates a burden of proof on claimants, not an affirmative defense for employers.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant Jislaine Pyram was injured on May 1, 1994, while working for Marriott International. The Judge of Compensation Claims found that claimant fai…
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 Temporary Partial Disability Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
KAHN, Judge.
We affirm the order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC), and briefly comment on two points raised by the employee/claimant.
Claimant first argues that the JCC erred by denying compensability in reliance upon section 440.09(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), for this accident which occurred on May 1, 1994. Claimant reasons that section 440.09(1) establishes an affirmative defense and urges that such defense was not articulated by the employer/carrier, prior to the commencement of the hearing in this case. The pertinent portion of the statute provides: “The injury, its occupational cause, and any resulting manifestations or disability shall be established to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and by objective medical findings.” Here, the JCC found that claimant failed to establish an injury by any objective medical findings. By its use of the phrase “shall be established,” the Legislature has given a quite clear signal that the statute devolves upon workers’ compensation claimants a new standard of proof, rather than providing employers with an affirmative defense.* The JCC’s order reciting no objective medical findings is supported by competent substantial evidence.
The JCC further committed no error in denying the claim for temporary partial disability benefits. An injured employee who refuses employment suitable to her capacity, which has been offered or procured to her, shall not be entitled to any compensation at any time during the continuance of such refusal, unless the JCC finds such refusal justifiable. Section 440.15(7), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). Here, the JCC found that claimant refused work offered by the employer within claimant’s restrictions.
AFFIRMED. ERVIN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.**
*
Because the question is not before us, we express no opinion as to whether sections 440.09(l)(a) and (b) establish affirmative defenses.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A. Duda & Sons, Inc. v. Kelley, 900 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…fuses suitable employment, that employee “shall not be entitled to any compensation during the continuance of such refusal” unless, in the JCC’s opinion, refusal . is. justified. See § 440.15(7), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added); Pyram v. Marriott Int’l, 687 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). [*669] The legislature clearly intends to strongly encourage injured workers, who are capable, to return to the workplace. The method of encouragement chosen by the legislature was to deny all compensation when the claimant refu…
-
Fam. Dollar Stores & Travelers Indem. Co. v. Henderson, 718 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…s medical bills, hospital bills and prescriptions that are related to the claim. Because the record does not support a finding of a causal connection between the claimant’s employment and her injury, we reverse. In Pyram v. Marriott International, 687 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), we concluded that the 1994 amendments to Chapter 440 created a new standard of proof for workers’ compensation claimants. Section 440.09(1), Florida Statutes establishes this new standard and states that “[t]he injury, its occup…
-
Nordic Track and The Hartford v. Zimmerman, 744 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…was not employable was premised specifically on Dr. Kleiman’s later restrictions, and thus it is inadequate proof of PTD as well. See Family Dollar Stores v. Henderson, 718 So. 2d 931 (Fla. [*1123] 1st DCA 1998), and Pyram v. Marriott International, 687 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). REVERSED. JOANOS, ALLEN and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence