Koger v. Sheraton Inn, 87-1211

Decision Date17 June 1988
Docket NumberNo. 87-1211,87-1211
Citation527 So.2d 284,13 Fla. L. Weekly 1446
Parties13 Fla. L. Weekly 1446 Marilyn KOGER, Appellant, v. SHERATON INN and Ina/Aetna and Tony's Restaurant and Reliance Insurance Company, Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Bill McCabe, of Shepherd, McCabe & Cooley, Orlando; and Donna L. Schnorr, of Bruce L. Scheiner & Associates, Ft. Myers, for appellant.

Mark E. Hungate, of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellees Employer/Carrier # 1, Sheraton/CIGNA.

Gerald W. Pierce, of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., Fort Myers, for appellees Tony's Restaurant and Reliance Ins. Co.

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Claimant appeals from the deputy commissioner's order denying her claim for permanent total disability benefits. The deputy found claimant capable of doing light work uninterruptedly and concluded that her lack of employment was due to her geographical circumstances, albeit such circumstances were "forced upon her by economic necessity and not by any intention on her part to voluntarily limit her employment." We reverse.

Since the deputy specifically found that claimant had not voluntarily limited her income, and as he properly found, based on the medical testimony, that claimant was capable of doing some light work, he necessarily predicated his denial of PTD benefits on a conclusion that claimant's lack of employment was not causally related to her industrial accident. To the contrary, the record indicates that claimant, forty-nine years old at the time of the hearing and having a sixth grade education, had a past vocational history involving work almost exclusively as a waitress or hostess in the restaurant business. She suffered two compensable injuries, the first one to her neck while working for the Sheraton, and the second to her lower back while employed with Tony's Restaurant. Claimant was forced to stop work in March of 1986 when she underwent a second surgery on her back. She has not worked since then. The vocational rehabilitation counselor who testified before the deputy specifically stated that in light of claimant's restrictions imposed by her physicians, she had ruled out claimant's pre-injury occupations. The counselor also testified that if less restrictions had been imposed or if she had been advised that claimant could undertake either of her pre-injury occupations, there would have been a greater job market available in the area...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • U.S. Foundry & Mfg. Co. v. Serpa
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 16 Julio 1990
    ...to continue the work in which he has training and experience because of the disabling effects of the injury. E.g., Koger v. Sheraton Inn, 527 So.2d 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). This proposition has been applied to establish causation, but it has not been applied to establish a blanket rule that......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT