STC/Documation v. Burns

• Decision Date: 10 February 1988
• Docket Number: No. 87-415,87-415
• Citation: 521 So.2d 197,13 Fla. L. Weekly 409
• Parties: 13 Fla. L. Weekly 409 STC/DOCUMATION and Traveler's Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Charles BURNS, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 197

521 So.2d 197

13 Fla. L. Weekly 409

STC/DOCUMATION and Traveler's Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Charles BURNS, Appellee.

No. 87-415.

District Court of Appeal of Florida First District.

Feb. 10, 1988.

Robert G. Brightman, Orlando, for appellants.

O. John Alpizar, Palm Bay, and Bill McCabe, of Shepherd, McCabe & Cooley, Orlando, for appellee.

SHIVERS, Judge.

The employer/carrier (E/C) in this workers' compensation case appeal the deputy commissioner's (DC's) award of continuing wage loss benefits to the claimant, contending that claimant's termination from STC/Documation (STC) was the result of general layoffs due to the company's impending bankruptcy, and was not related to claimant's industrial injury. We disagree with appellants' argument, and affirm.

The parties stipulated below that claimant suffered a compensable industrial injury to his lower back on March 19, 1984. At the time of the accident, claimant worked as an inspector of mechanical gauges at STC, a position primarily involving paperwork, with very little physical activity and no heavy lifting. Claimant was released for work on June 20, 1984, with the condition that he work no more than four hours per day and lift no more than forty pounds. When he returned to work, he had been given a different position, which required him to stand for four to eight hours per day and involved heavy lifting. In September of 1984, the plant manager demanded that claimant either work eight hours per day or leave the plant. After claimant's treating physician, Dr. Ortiz, gave his conditional approval for claimant to work eight hours per day, claimant was again moved to a different area, but one which still required heavy lifting. Claimant had difficulty working eight hours per day and on many days was forced to leave early due to pain. Soon thereafter, the employer demanded that claimant increase his hours to ten per day. Claimant refused to do so on the basis that he believed it would cause permanent damage, and on the basis that he believed he could not physically work ten hours per day.

On October 17, 1984, he was terminated from employment. One hundred seven other employees were also terminated on that date, and on October 31, 1984 STC went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Claimant began an immediate job search after his termination, and in December 1984 was hired by Accudyne, where he was still employed at the time of the final hearing before the deputy commissioner. The job held by claimant at Accudyne was within the physical restrictions imposed by Dr. Ortiz, and was practically identical as far as hours and physical activities to the job he held at STC at the time of the accident. Claimant's hourly wage at Accudyne, however, was $1.22 less than his hourly wage at STC at the time of the accident.

A claimant in a workers' compensation case bears the burden of presenting evidence that his or her compensable physical limitation is "an element in the causal chain resulting in or contributing to the wage loss." City of Clermont v. Rumph, 450 So.2d 573 at 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The claimant has no burden to establish that the compensable impairment was the sole cause of the wage loss, and...