City of Miami v. Jacoby
| Decision Date | 29 April 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-243,91-243 |
| Citation | 599 So.2d 171 |
| Parties | CITY OF MIAMI, Appellant, v. Eleanor JACOBY, Appellee. 599 So.2d 171, 17 Fla. L. Week. D1132 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
A. Quinn Jones, III, City Atty., and Kathryn S. Pecko, Asst. City Atty., Miami, for appellant.
Joseph Hackney, Jr., Miami, for appellee.
The City of Miami (City) appeals from a final order of the judge of compensation claims which awards the claimant "wage loss for the period of 8/2/87 to 1/24/88, based on earnings at the minimum wage." We reverse and remand.
The claimant, a lieutenant with the Miami City Police Department, injured her knee on October 17, 1983. By July 1987, she had had two surgeries on her knee, treatment for her back, several sessions of physical therapy, and was anticipating a third surgery on her knee. The claimant filed a claim seeking benefits. The City controverted on the basis that the claimant voluntarily limited her income and that her inability to earn wages is not the result of the on-the-job injury. The parties agreed to limit the issue to temporary partial disability or wage loss from August 2, 1987 until January 24, 1988.
The judge made the following findings relevant to the award of wage loss benefits:
3. I find that the claimant during this period did not conduct a job search.
4. I find that the claimant was undergoing medical care in the form of epidural blocks and carcinoma treatment during this period, and I therefore find that where the claimant's problems and inability to do a job search are medically related, that deemed earnings should apply. I therefore find that the employer should apply deemed earnings at minimum wage for all periods of time between August 2, 1987, to January 24, 1988.
These findings are deficient in several respects.
Although the judge finds that the claimant did not conduct a job search, there is no finding regarding whether a job search was excused. It appears from the record that there was a dispute as to whether the claimant was ever informed of her duty to conduct a job search and whether she was supplied with job search forms.
The order does not contain a finding that the wage loss was the result of the compensable injury. The judge does find that the claimant was undergoing medical care. However, as the City notes, the record indicates that facet blocks were recommended but there is no evidence the claimant ever received a facet block. 1 In finding that the claimant's inability to do a job search was medically related, the judge also relies on the fact that the claimant was undergoing carcinoma treatment for an unrelated thyroid condition. Based on the finding that the claimant's inability to conduct a job search was medically related, the judge found that the employer should "apply deemed earnings at minimum wage." As recognized in Spaulding v. Albertson's, 543 So.2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA1989):
Application of the deemed earning provision of 440.15(3)(b)2 is limited to those situations in which the employee "voluntarily limits his or her income or fails to accept employment commensurate with his or her abilities." When a noncompensable condition causes disability in a claimant which is separate and apart from the disability caused by the compensable condition, "deemed earnings" is not the appropriate measure of workers' compensation benefits to be awarded to the claimant. In such a circumstance, the issue is an evidentiary one as to what portion of the disability is caused by the compensable condition.
543 So.2d at 860 (citation omitted). The judge made no finding regarding whether the claimant voluntarily limited her income. 2
Upon remand, the judge should determine whether any wage loss incurred was the result of the compensable injury. If the claimant has wage loss that is the result of the compensable injury, the judge should determine whether the requirement of conducting a job search was excused and whether the claimant voluntarily limited her income.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I would affirm the order of the judge of compensation claims in its entirety. In so concluding, I agree with the majority that the judge should not have offset the wage loss claimed, because case law is clear that the deemed earnings provision of the statute is inapplicable under such circumstances. I agree also that the judge should have explicitly ruled on the employer's defense regarding voluntary limitation of income. In consideration of the somewhat unusual circumstances of this case, however, I would not remand the case for further findings.
Because the judge applied deemed earnings based upon, as he stated, claimant's "inability to do a job search," he may have implicitly rejected the employer's defense of voluntary limitation of income for the reason that the employer failed to inform claimant of her responsibility to conduct a work search. If this was the tenor of his order, the order should be affirmed for the reasons stated infra. If, however, he found instead that claimant was informed of such duty, but failed to so act because of her continuing treatment for an unrelated medical condition, I still would not remand for further proceedings in that I am satisfied there is no competent, substantial evidence to support such a finding. Thus, under either theory the order should be affirmed.
In situations in which the evidence does not disclose that an employee was notified of the responsibility to perform a work search, this court has recognized in substantial case law that it is immaterial whether the wage loss claimed was the result of the compensable injury, and that a worker is entitled to full disability benefits without regard to the employee's capability for work vel non during the period for which benefits are sought. For example, an employee may have an unimpaired ability to work, but if he or she is never released to return to work by the attending physician or advised to conduct a work search by the employer, the causal connection between the compensable injury and the wage loss claimed remains intact. Under those circumstances, the employee should be paid benefits in full for the period of time during which he or she was not on notice of the obligation to return to work or otherwise given the opportunity to test his or her capacity to work in the labor market.
In Mackin v. Olde World Cheese Shop, 536 So.2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA1988), this court held that if an employer/carrier does not notify the claimant of the work search obligation, the claimant is entitled to full compensation benefits, and the deemed earnings offset is inapplicable. Our decisional law also recognizes that Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, places reciprocal obligations upon the employer and the employee: Section 440.185(2)(e), Florida Statutes (...
To continue reading
Request your trial