Meek v. Layne-Western Co., LAYNE-WESTERN

Citation566 So.2d 31
Decision Date16 August 1990
Docket NumberLAYNE-WESTERN,No. 89-1063,89-1063
Parties15 Fla. L. Weekly D2105 Zephaniah MEEK, Appellant, v.CO. and Crawford and Company, Appellees.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

Robert A. Wohn, Jr. of Wohn & McKinley, P.A., Cocoa, for appellant.

Bernard J. Zimmerman of Zimmerman, Shuffield, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A., Orlando, for appellees.

NIMMONS, Judge.

The claimant in this workers' compensation appeal challenges the finding of the judge of compensation claims that appellant failed to show a causal connection between appellant's compensable injury and the subsequent wage loss. We find that the judge applied an incorrect standard, and reverse.

In his July 1986 industrial accident which occurred in the course of his employment with appellee Layne-Western Company, appellant fractured the fifth, fourth and third fingers of the right hand. He reached MMI by September 24, 1986 with a 2% permanent impairment of the whole body. He subsequently left his employment with Layne-Western and obtained employment with CBI/Nacon, Incorporated shortly after reaching MMI. On October 14, 1987, appellant suffered a crush injury to the index and middle fingers of his right hand while at work with CBI. 1

Appellant was laid off from his employment with CBI in late November, 1987. On December 7, 1987, Dr. Borrero, a surgeon, examined appellant and reported that he was still convalescing from the October 1987 hand injury. Dr. Gibbons, an orthopedic surgeon who treated appellant for his 1986 injury, reported that when he examined appellant on January 28, 1988, appellant's condition did not appear to have changed appreciably. At the time of the January 1988 examination, Dr. Gibbons was unaware of the October 1987 injury. Appellant conducted a work search from November 1987 through April 1988, and subsequently found full-time employment. He then sought wage-loss benefits, which the e/c controverted, to compensate him for his loss of income resulting from his unemployment during the months of December 1987 through April 1988. 2

After a hearing at which appellant testified, the judge issued a final order which stated in part:

I find that the claimant was laid off in late November, 1987 following his new accident because of his continuing problems. In support of this finding I rely on Dr. Borrero's opinion that the claimant was still convalescing from the fractured finger as late as December 7, 1987. The claimant presented no medical evidence to prove a causal connection between the claimed wage loss and the July 10, 1986 accident. The most likely cause for his wage loss during the period claimed was the October 14, 1987 accident and injury. I therefore deny the claimant's claim for wage loss benefits for the period claimed and accept the employer/carrier's defense that the claimant's lost employment and lost wages was due to a subsequent injury and not due to the July 10, 1986, industrial accident.

The judge made no findings regarding the adequacy of appellant's job search.

The claimant is obligated to show that his compensable physical limitation was an element in the causal chain resulting in or contributing to his wage loss, not that it is the sole cause of such loss. City of Clermont v. Rumph, 450 So.2d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Where a claimant is suffering the permanent effects of the compensable accident at the time that he suffers a second, noncompensable accident, the second accident acts as a bar only as to those claims which would not have occurred in the absence of the noncompensable accident. Koulias v. Tarpon Marine Ways, 538 So.2d 130 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Parish v. Baptist Hospital, 512 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). 3 Accordingly, the judge erred in treating the second hand injury as a superseding cause on the ground that the latter accident was the most likely cause of the wage loss.

A...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Nickolls v. University of Florida, 90-72
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 4, 1992
    ...1989). This burden may be met by proof which encompasses medical evidence or evidence of a good-faith work search. Meek v. Layne-Western Co., 566 So.2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Once the claimant has satisfied the initial burden, the burden of proof shifts to the E/C to demonstrate a voluntar......
  • Reynolds v. State, 91-1349
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 5, 1992
  • Clairson Intern. v. White, 90-2823
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 6, 1991
    ...to benefits generally is a question of fact for the JCC to determine from the totality of the circumstances. Meek v. Layne-Western Co., 566 So.2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The JCC's decision, however, to grant PTD must be based on competent substantial evidence and factual findings which will......
  • Thompson v. City of Jacksonville, 92-3783
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 4, 1995
    ...a burden [which] may be met by proof which encompasses medical evidence or evidence of a good-faith work search. Meek v. Layne-Western Co., 566 So.2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Once the claimant has satisfied the initial burden, the burden of proof shifts to the E/C to demonstrate a voluntary ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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