Hdv Constr. Sys. Inc. v. Aragon

• Decision Date: 09 August 2011
• Docket Number: No. 1D10–6401.,1D10–6401.
• Citation: 66 So.3d 331
• Parties: HDV CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS, INC. and Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Appellants/Cross–Appellees,v.Luis E. ARAGON, Appellee/Cross–Appellant.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

66 So.3d 331

HDV CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS, INC. and Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Appellants/Cross–Appellees,
v.
Luis E. ARAGON, Appellee/Cross–Appellant.

No. 1D10–6401.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 28, 2011.Rehearing Denied Aug. 9, 2011.

[66 So.3d 332]

Robert D. Pope of McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod, Pope & Weaver, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellants/Cross–Appellees.George D. Rotchford of Rotchford & Betancourt, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee/Cross–Appellant.PER CURIAM.

In this workers' compensation case, the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) found that the Employer knew or should have known that Claimant (its employee), an illegal immigrant from Mexico, was without the legal right to work in the United States. The JCC further found that notwithstanding this knowledge, the Employer hired and continued to unlawfully employ Claimant, until he was injured in a significant workplace accident. After Claimant suffered injury, the Employer and its workers' compensation carrier (collectively the E/C) attempted to assert, as a defensive matter, Claimant's illegal status so as to defeat a claim for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. The JCC concluded, based on the authority of Cenvill Development Corp. v. Candelo, 478 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), that, because the Employer knew or should have known of Claimant's illegal status prior to his injury, but continued his employment nonetheless, the E/C was precluded from using Claimant's illegal status as a defensive measure—requiring the E/C to respond to the disability imposed by Claimant's significant and objectively demonstrated work-related injuries and physical restrictions, and his vocational limitations which include, but are not limited to, his unauthorized work status.

On appeal, the E/C argues that Claimant's illegal status should defeat Claimant's entitlement to permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. Because we conclude that the JCC properly applied this court's precedent in Candelo and, further, because competent substantial evidence supports the JCC's finding that Claimant is permanently and totally disabled based on the combined effect of his physical injuries and restrictions and his vocational impediments, we affirm the award of permanent total disability (PTD) benefits.

By way of cross-appeal, Claimant challenges the JCC's conclusion that he was legally prohibited from awarding PTD benefits on a continuing basis and for periods following the merit hearing. Because a JCC may award continuing PTD benefits, we reverse the JCC's denial of PTD benefits for periods following the date of merit hearing, and remand for additional proceedings.

Facts

Claimant, while working for the Employer as a framer, fell from a height of thirty feet, suffering multiple complex fractures to his left foot and forearm. After receiving extensive medical treatment, including the implantation of a spinal cord stimulator, Claimant was determined to have permanent injuries, including an objective diagnosis of complex regional pain syndrome in the left foot accompanied by constant pain, nerve injury, and discoloration. As a result of these injuries, Claimant has been permanently restricted to sedentary work only, a strength level that

[66 So.3d 333]

prohibits Claimant from performing any of his pre-injury occupations (farm, construction, and manufacturing work). Claimant, in addition to not possessing proper documentation that would allow him to work legally in the United States, has no driver's license, a limited education, an inability to speak, read, or write in English, and no transferrable skills which would assist him in obtaining lighter employment.

Claimant filed a claim for PTD benefits, which the E/C denied on the basis that Claimant was physically capable of sedentary work, and was unemployable only because of his illegal status. Claimant, relying on the authority of Candelo, sought to prove that, because the Employer knew or should have known his illegal status at all relevant times, it was precluded from asserting this fact as a shield from liability. The JCC,...