DAVID RAMOS, APPELLANT,
v.
WAL-MART STORE, # 0817, KISSIMMEE, AND INTEGRATED ADMINSTRATORS, 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 finding that the claimant was terminated for reasons unrelated to his work injury, but reversed and remanded because termination does not preclude temporary partial disability benefits if the injury prevented him from obtaining comparable employment at his prior wage.
A claimant terminated for reasons unrelated to a compensable injury may still be eligible for temporary partial disability benefits if the injury prevented him from obtaining employment within his abilities at his prior wage.
[1] A claimant may be entitled to temporary partial disability benefits despite justifiable termination for non-injury-related reasons if the compensable injury prevented him…
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 intelligence“even if a claimant is justifiably fired or terminated for reasons unrelated to a compensable injury, that claimant may still be eligible for wage-loss benefits if the injury prevented him from obtaining employment within his abilities at his prior wage”
Court citing Sparks v. Aluma Shield Industries to establish that termination does not automatically bar disability benefits
David Ramos was injured on the job at a Walmart store and was subsequently terminated. The Judge of Compensation Claims found the termination was for …
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 Compensable Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the Judge of Compensation Claims’ finding that the claimant was terminated for reasons unrelated to his injury on the job. However, that does not fully resolve the claimant’s alleged entitlement to temporary partial disability benefits. See Sparks v. Aluma Shield Industries, 523 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)(holding that even if a claimant is justifiably fired or terminated for reasons unrelated to a compensable injury, that claimant may still be eligible for wage-loss benefits if the injury prevented him from obtaining employment within his abilities at his prior wage); Betancourt v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 693 So. 2d 680, 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(holding that a claimant may still be entitled to benefits if a compensable injury prevented him from acquiring employment within his abilities at his previous wage); Vencor Hosp. v. Ahles, 727 So. 2d 968, 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)(noting that section 440.02(11) defines “disability” as the “incapacity because of the injury to earn in the same or any other employment the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of the injury.”).
Therefore, we reverse and remand for the JCC to make additional findings regarding whether or not the claimant’s compensable injury impaired his ability from March 1, 1997, through May 15, 1997, to obtain employment within his abilities at his prior wage.
Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
ERVIN, KAHN and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stewart v. CRS Rinker Materials Corp., 855 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…1084; Betancourt, 693 So. 2d at 684. As such, the JCC’s finding that claimant was terminated for reasons unrelated to his work-related injury did not fully resolve claimant’s alleged entitlement to TPD benefits. See Ramos v. Wal-Mart Store, # 0817, 789 So. 2d 1240, 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Accordingly, we reverse the JCC’s order to the extent that the JCC denied TPD benefits for the periods from November 1, 2000, through December 10, 2000, and January 4, 2001, through April 24, 2001, and remand with directio…
Authorities Cited
- Betancourt v. Sears Roebuck & Co. & Kemper Ins. Co., 693 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Vencor Hosp. & Sentry Claims Serv. v. Ahles, 727 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Sparks v. Aluma Shield Indus. & Claims Ctr., 523 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)