Barnes v. Parker, AY-112

• Decision Date: 12 March 1985
• Docket Number: No. AY-112,AY-112
• Citation: 464 So.2d 1298,10 Fla. L. Weekly 637
• Parties: 10 Fla. L. Weekly 637 Troy Azell BARNES, Appellant, v. PCH Walter T. PARKER and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1298

464 So.2d 1298

10 Fla. L. Weekly 637

Troy Azell BARNES, Appellant, v. PCH Walter T. PARKER and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Appellees.

No. AY-112.

District Court of Appeal of Florida First District.

March 12, 1985.

Russell R. Stewart, Panama City, for appellant.

James N. McConnaughhay and Gordon Cherr of Karl, McConnaughhay, Roland & Maida, Tallahassee, for appellees.

SMITH, Judge.

We affirm the deputy's denial of appellant's claim for wage loss benefits, since competent substantial evidence supports the deputy's finding that appellant's work search was inadequate, Walton v. Alco Distributors, Inc., 434 So.2d 60 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). However, we disapprove the deputy's order to the extent that it implies ¹ that the duty of informing an injured claimant of the benefits available to him under the workers' compensation law, or the E/C's duty actively to pursue the obligation "to place needed benefits in the hands of the injured worker" ² is somehow lessened or diminished by the fact that an injured claimant is represented by an attorney.

The 1979 Workers' Compensation Act--in its day-to-day operation is intended to be--beyond all else--quintessentially an employer-carrier monitored system, rather than a claimant-attorney monitored system. This principle has found application in prior cases from this court, as very recently in Massaro v. Columbian Apartments, 457 So.2d 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), in which we found to be without merit the E/C's contention that they were entitled to ignore the request for alternative medical care of a claimant who was represented by counsel. Earlier, in Holiday Care Center v. Scriven, 418 So.2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), this court alluded to the "centrality" of the work search requirement, and pointed out that as the injured worker progresses from inability to ability to work, the E/C's obligation to pay benefits continues, and "will be monitored by contact with the searching worker." Id. at 325. ³ In the same case, we also noted that the E/C's affirmative obligations under Chapter 440, as interpreted in Florida Erection Services, supra, do not terminate upon the E/C's initial denial or termination of benefits, "nor when the matter takes on adversarial characteristics...." Id. at 327.

AFFIRMED as modified.

BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

1 The section of the deputy's order containing the language we disapprove appears below:

11. The Claimant also argues that the E/C's letter of October 28, 1982, advising the Claimant of his right to apply for wage-loss benefits, did not inform the Claimant of the necessity of a work search as it well should have done. The Claimant...