Martinez v. Lake Park Auto Brokers Inc., No. 1D10–4395.

• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: 60 So.3d 533
• Parties: Roger MARTINEZ, Appellant,v.LAKE PARK AUTO BROKERS, INC., and Unisource Administrators, Inc., C & I Ins. Co, AIG SB, Appellees.
• Decision Date: 29 April 2011
• Docket Number: No. 1D10–4395.

60 So.3d 533

Roger MARTINEZ, Appellant,
v.
LAKE PARK AUTO BROKERS, INC., and Unisource Administrators, Inc., C & I Ins. Co, AIG SB, Appellees.

No. 1D10–4395.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 29, 2011.

[60 So.3d 534]

Harvey Kaufman, Palm Beach Gardens, for Appellant.Kimberly J. Fernandes of Kelley, Kronenberg, Gilmartin, Fichtel, Wander, Bamdas, Eskalyo & Dunbrack, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellees.PER CURIAM.

In this workers' compensation case, Claimant appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying permanent total disability (PTD) and supplemental PTD benefits. We remand because the JCC failed to address the adequacy of Claimant's job search.

Section 440.15(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2006), provides that an injured employee may prove entitlement to PTD benefits by “establish[ing] that he or she is not able to engage in at least sedentary employment, within a 50–mile radius of the employee's residence, due to his or her physical limitation.” We have explained that there are three alternative methods by which a claimant may prove entitlement to PTD benefits:

by presenting evidence of (1) permanent medical incapacity to engage in at least sedentary employment, within a 50–mile radius of the employee's residence, due to physical limitation; (2) permanent work-related physical restrictions coupled with an exhaustive but unsuccessful job search; or (3) permanent work-related physical restrictions that, while not alone totally disabling, preclude Claimant from engaging in at least sedentary employment when combined with vocational factors.

Blake v. Merck & Co., 43 So.3d 882, 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (emphasis added).

Here, the JCC found Claimant's job search “does not establish that his inability to secure at least sedentary employment within a 50–mile radius of his residence was ‘due to his physical limitations,’ ” a finding that addresses the first method listed in Blake. The JCC failed to consider, however, the possibility of Claimant's entitlement under the second method, likely because the JCC did not have the benefit of Blake at the time she entered her order. Blake requires remand for the JCC to consider the adequacy of Claimant's job search.

We find no merit to the Employer/Carrier's contention that Claimant must also present direct proof of a causal connection between his physical limitations and his unsuccessful job search. This court has never required direct proof of such a connection; rather,...