Cooper v. BUDDY FREDDY'S RESTAURANT
Decision Date | 30 November 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 1D03-4657.,1D03-4657. |
Parties | Janice COOPER, Appellant, v. BUDDY FREDDY'S RESTAURANT and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Christopher B. Young, St. Petersburg, for Appellant.
Daniel J. Ewin, of Dubbeld & Kaelber, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellees.
In this case, the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denied claimant's petition for impairment benefits under section 440.15(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), because claimant had not yet reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) for her psychiatric condition and had received only 36 weeks of temporary disability benefits. Contrary to claimant's arguments on appeal, the JCC's order follows both the workers' compensation statutes and our previous decisions. Section 440.15(3)(a)3., Florida Statutes (1999), states that an "employee's entitlement to impairment income benefits begins the day after the employee reaches maximum medical improvement or the expiration of temporary benefits." Section 440.15(3)(a)4. requires assignment of an impairment rating when a claimant has "reached maximum medical improvement or 6 weeks before the expiration of temporary benefits, whichever occurs earlier." Accordingly, we have consistently held that a claim for impairment or permanent disability benefits made before a claimant has reached MMI or received 98 weeks of temporary benefits is premature. See, e.g., G. Pierce Woods Mem'l Hosp. v. Lewis, 879 So.2d 643, 644 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ( ); Metro. Title & Guar. Co. v. Muniz, 806 So.2d 637, 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (); Okeechobee Health Care v. Collins, 726 So.2d 775, 777 n. (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) ("Until maximum medical improvement or until the expiration of all temporary benefits is imminent, assigning [an impairment] rating serves no purpose under the statute."). Here, the claimant has neither reached psychiatric MMI nor received 98 weeks of temporary benefits.
Contrary to claimant's assumption, the JCC's order does not foreclose the possibility she will ever receive 104 weeks of temporary disability benefits. The JCC wrote: "[T]he claimant in the case at bar has not received 104 weeks of indemnity benefits, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Olmo v. Rehabcare Starmed/Srs
...all temporary benefits is imminent, assigning [an impairment] rating serves no purpose under the statute."). Cooper v. Buddy Freddy's Rest., 889 So.2d 125, 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Here, Ms. Olmo sought authorization for back surgery by filing a petition after her entitlement to temporary d......
-
Auman v. Leverock's Seafood House
...the "calendar" interpretation of the 104-week statutory cap in favor of the "bank" interpretation. See Cooper v. Buddy Freddy's Rest., 889 So.2d 125, 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ("Claimant's 104 weeks of eligibility is measured in terms of cumulative payments received rather than consecutive we......
- Forrest v. Wilson, 1D04-0125.