Gall Silica Min. Co. v. Sheffield, YY-275
| Decision Date | 06 August 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. YY-275,YY-275 |
| Citation | 401 So.2d 1169 |
| Parties | GALL SILICA MINING CO. and Risk Management Services, Inc., Appellants, v. Edward SHEFFIELD, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John A. Leklem of Miller & Cooper, P. A., Orlando, for appellants.
Michael B. Murphy of Stanley, Wines & Smith, P. A., Auburndale, for appellee.
Employer/carrier appeal from the deputy commissioner's order awarding claimant Sheffield workers' compensation benefits for his back injury. We find no error in any of the points raised on appeal, and specifically reject the employer/carrier's argument that Sheffield waived his right to wage-loss disability benefits by his failure to file a timely request for some of them under section 440.185(10), Fla. Stat. (1979).
Section 440.185(10), added by the legislature in 1979, provides in pertinent part:
Any compensable wage loss shall be reported by the employee to the carrier or self-insured employer within 30 days after the termination of the month for which such loss is claimed. The (workers' compensation) division shall provide by rule for the reporting of wage loss by the injured worker ... to the division and may prescribe forms for such reporting.... The division shall require by rule that the employer inform a worker who suffers a permanent impairment of his possible entitlement to wage-loss and other benefits and of the worker's obligation to report a claimed wage loss.
Apparently aware that claimant had been released for work with some medical restrictions, the carrier soon afterward sent him the form letter required by the workers' compensation division under Fla. Admin. Code Rule 38F-3.17(3), .19(1), notifying claimant that he might be eligible for wage-loss benefits. The letter advised claimant that he must file a request for wage-loss benefits for each month during which he suffered wage loss due to his injury, but it did not tell him when he must file such requests to comply with § 440.185(10). We hasten to add that the letter complied with Rules 38F-3.17(3) and .19(1); the rule, like the carrier's letter, makes no mention of the filing deadline.
Employer/carrier argue that since section 440.185(10) contains no provision excusing failure to report wage-losses in a timely fashion, its reporting requirements are mandatory, and Sheffield has lost his benefits due to failure to comply with them. We cannot agree with this construction of the statute. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tooley v. Alm
...(Cal.App.3d 1985) (employer has statutory duty to notify employee of possible entitlement to benefits); Gall Silica Mining Co. v. Sheffield, 401 So.2d 1169, 1170 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981) (employer has statutory duty to inform worker of possible entitlement to wage loss and other benefits and ......
-
Timmeny v. Tropical Botanicals Corp.
...to be suspended until the date the E/C actually notified claimant of his entitlement to benefits); Gall Silica Mining Co. v. Sheffield, 401 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (notice which carrier sent to employee, informing him that he might be eligible for benefits and that he must file a req......
-
Litvin v. St. Lucie County Sheriff's Dept.
...agent did not furnish the pertinent information and forms, an untimely filing would be excused, see e.g., Gall Silica Mining Co. v. Sheffield, 401 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), and a claimant would be relieved of any job search requirement despite having actual knowledge of this responsib......
-
Certified Grocers v. Conerty
...such forms and provide information as to the obligations which Chapter 440 imposes in this regard. See Gall Silica Mining Co. v. Sheffield, 401 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). However, the record in the present case indicates that the employer initially complied with this duty when claimant......