DeFrees v. Colt and Dumont/Hit Sales, BG-392
| Decision Date | 27 February 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. BG-392,BG-392 |
| Citation | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 519,483 So.2d 848 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 519 Wanda DeFREES, Appellant, v. COLT AND DUMONT/HIT SALES and Hartford Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Drew Tanney of Tanney, Forde, Donahey & Eno, P.A., Clearwater, for appellant.
Marian P. McCulloch of Jacobs, Robbins, Gaynor, Burton, Hampp, Burns, Bronstein & Shasteen, P.A., Tampa, for appellees.
By this workers' compensation appeal, DeFrees complains of the deputy commissioner's order finding her job search between 8 August 1983 and 17 September 1984 was inadequate, when she was not informed by the employer/carrier of her obligation to supply job search records. We reverse.
The evidence in the record is uncontradicted that DeFrees was never informed of her duty to conduct a work search or of her duty to document that search by the employer/carrier. Accordingly, she argues her inability to be more specific regarding details of her work search should be excused. The employer offers two lines of defense against this argument. First, because the record shows that it sent out a standard form letter, it acted reasonably. However, the confusing language of this letter makes no mention of the requirement under Chapter 440 of a documented work search.
Alternatively, the employer contends that it was not put on sufficient notice that DeFrees was out of work, and thus should be excused for not making the necessary information available to her. The record refutes this argument. DeFrees made several phone calls to the carrier informing them of her status and followed them up with letters. Further, the carrier received letters from two different physicians informing them that DeFrees could no longer work for the employer and that she continued to suffer from bronchitis problems.
In his order, the deputy states:
Although the Florida District Court of Appeal has held that the failure of the employer/carrier to provide temporary partial disability or wage loss forms can be grounds to excuse the late filing of the forms, the Appellate Court has not gone so far as to hold that a failure of the employer/carrier to notify the claimant of the job search requirement is grounds for excusing the necessity of conducting a good faith job search.
The case at bar requires the court to take this extra step. Sections 440.185(2)(e) and (4), Florida Statutes (1979), both make clear mention of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nickolls v. University of Florida
...benefits would most certainly have been denied prior to the announcement of this court's decision in DeFrees v. Colt & DuMont/Hit Sales, 483 So.2d 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In DeFrees this court held, on facts showing the claimant's asserted inability to continue working for the employer bec......
-
Baggett v. Mulberry Const. Co.
...Co., 507 So.2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Morris v. Metal Industries, 491 So.2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); DeFrees v. Colt and Dumont/Hit Sales, 483 So.2d 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). It is undisputed that employer/carrier in this case failed to advise claimant of his work search obligation or of h......
-
City of Miami v. Jacoby
...Fuchs Baking Co., 507 So.2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA1987); Morris v. Metal Indus., 491 So.2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA1986); DeFrees v. Colt & DuMont/Hit Sales, 483 So.2d 848 (Fla. 1st DCA1986). The award of disability benefits to the worker under such circumstances appears to be more in the nature of a s......
-
Rios v. Fred Teitelbaum Const.
...516 So.2d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Morris v. Metal Industries, Inc., 491 So.2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Defrees v. Colt and Dumont/Hit Sales, 483 So.2d 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In other words, the work search requirement is an evidentiary burden rather than an absolute condition precedent t......