Sanlando Reprographics v. Vidimos

• Citation: 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1401,545 So.2d 397
• Decision Date: 09 June 1989
• Docket Number: No. 88-255,88-255
• Parties: 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1401 SANLANDO REPROGRAPHICS and State Farm Insurance Co., Appellants, v. John VIDIMOS, Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)

Page 397

545 So.2d 397

14 Fla. L. Weekly 1401

SANLANDO REPROGRAPHICS and State Farm Insurance Co., Appellants, v. John VIDIMOS, Appellee.

No. 88-255.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

First District.

June 9, 1989.

Lamar D. Oxford, of Dean, Ringers, Morgan & Lawton, Orlando, for appellants.

Lawrence L. Lidfeldt, Maitland, for appellee.

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Employer/carrier seek review of a workers' compensation order by which temporary partial disability benefits were awarded, a medical evaluation was ordered, and penalties were assessed. We find that the temporary partial disability benefits and penalties were properly awarded, although the order contains a misstatement which we correct as to the commencement date of such disability. However, we further find that the medical evidence is not in conflict and employer/carrier should not have been required to provide claimant with an unclaimed medical evaluation.

Claimant sought disability benefits for a back injury which was diagnosed by his treating physician as an acute exacerbation of a prior injury which involved displaced vertebrae and possible disc degeneration. The doctor could not say whether this condition was temporary or would result in permanent impairment, and indicated that claimant had not yet attained maximum medical improvement. Claimant remained briefly off work in accordance with the doctor's instructions, and then returned on light duty release with restrictions. Claimant continued to perform his prior job for approximately two months, and then resigned and obtained other employment. Thereafter maintaining one and sometimes two jobs, claimant continued to look for other higher-paying work. The doctor indicated that the job change was prudent and consistent with claimant's medical restrictions.

The deputy found that claimant terminated his former employment based upon the desire to obtain work within his restrictions. The deputy also found that claimant conducted a satisfactory job search, and did not voluntarily limit his income. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support these findings, and temporary partial disability benefits were awardable. The deputy ordered that such benefits be commenced as of the date on which claimant terminated his former employment. While the deputy found, and the evidence establishes, that this occurred in January 1987, benefits were awarded as of January 1986, and we amend the order to correct this misstatement.

Although cl...