OUTRIGGER INN AND MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
v.
DON J. RESER AND FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS
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 case addresses the improper combining of disability ratings under Florida law. The court found that the deputy commissioner conflated physical impairment and wage-earning capacity loss, contrary to statutory requirements that only the greater of the two should be used for permanent partial disability awards.
The deputy's award was improper because the finding failed to comply with the statutory mandate. The statute requires choosing the greater of either physical impairment or diminution of wage-earning capacity, not combining both. The evidence would sustain an award between 25% and 40%, but remand was necessary for proper redetermination.
“provided, however, that for the purpose of this paragraph 'disability' means either physical impairment or diminution of wage earning capacity, whichever is greater.”
Establishes the statutory requirement that only one measure of disability—the greater—should be used, not both combined.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA claimant suffered a lumbosacral sprain injury. The deputy commissioner found the claimant had physical impairment of 15% and diminished wage-earning…
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 Functional Disability cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioner, against whom a compensation award for 40% permanent partial disability compensation has been entered, contended before the commission and in the petition here that the deputy commissioner erroneously combined ratings for loss of wage earning capacity and functional disability contrary to the prescription of the statute governing permanent partial disability compensation, Sec. 440.15 (3) (u) :
“ * * * provided, however, that for the purpose o.f this paragraph ‘disability’ means either physical impairment or diminution of wage earning capacity, whichever is greater.”
The deputy found that claimant suffered a lumbosacral sprain, stating “that the Claimant has suffered an injury affecting his ability to compete on the open labor market, resulting in a diminution of his wage earning capacity and resulting in a 25% disability to the body as a whole over and above the 15% permanent partial rating attributed to the injury by Dr. Yarborough and heretofore accepted by the Employer/Carrier making the Claimant’s total disability 40% permanent partial disability to the body as a- whole.” The finding is not, in our opinion, sufficiently clear to comply with the statutory mandate. We conclude from our consideration of the record, however, that the evidence would sustain a compensation award for permanent partial disability between the minimum and maximum limits of 25 to 40%.
The order of affirmance by the commission is accordingly quashed and the cause remanded with directions that the deputy be required to determine the compensation anew upon the existing record in accordance with the opinion above.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.