Swift & Co. v. Surrency
| Decision Date | 28 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. AW-381,AW-381 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 798 SWIFT & COMPANY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Everett Wayne SURRENCY, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. |
Robert C. Gobelman and Jack W. Shaw, Jr. of Mathews, Osborne, McNatt, Gobelman & Cobb, Jacksonville, for appellant/cross-appellee.
John D. Rawls, Clearwater, for appellee/cross-appellant.
This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a final order which refused to permit appellant, employer, to credit wage-loss payments against payment of permanent total disability (PTD) in the same amount, found that employer acted in bad faith in not timely accepting appellee, claimant, as permanently and totally disabled, and, based on that finding, awarded attorney's fees. We reverse the order as it relates to the issues raised in the appeal, thereby mooting discussion of the issues raised in the cross-appeal.
Claimant, in the course of his employment as a butcher, suffered a compensable lower back injury on October 7, 1979, while lifting beef. The employer paid temporary total disability (TTD) benefits from October 8, 1979 to May 26, 1980, at a rate of $185.03 per week, and wage-loss benefits from May 27, 1980 to June 29, 1982, at a rate of $795.62 per month. After back surgery, claimant reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on June 16, 1981, with a 25% permanent impairment rating. On July 20, 1981, claimant filed a claim for PTD benefits since MMI.
In May 1982, after unsuccessful efforts to rehabilitate claimant, his rehabilitation advisor sent a written report on claimant's status to employer's servicing agent. The servicing agent's claims manager in charge of claimant's file received the rehabilitation report on May 12, 1982. The claims manager did not read the report until at least two weeks later, and then placed surveillance on claimant because he questioned the sincerity of claimant's search for a new job. After the surveillance showed no problems with claimant's search, the claims manager took two additional weeks to review claimant's file and confer with the employer and its attorney about claimant.
On June 29, 1982, the employer accepted claimant as permanently and totally disabled, setting the effective date of the acceptance as April 7, 1982, the last date that claimant was actively involved in rehabilitation efforts. Employer, therefore, reclassified wage-loss payments to claimant from April 7, 1982 to June 29, 1982 as PTD payments. Claimant contested that reclassification and asserted that the employer should have accepted claimant as permanently and totally disabled as of the date of MMI, June 16, 1981, and contended that the employer acted in bad faith in not doing so.
After several hearings, the deputy commissioner found: (1) Employer had a reasonable basis for paying wage-loss benefits from MMI to May 11, 1982; (2) although claimant is due PTD benefits from June 17, 1981, employer is entitled to a credit for wage-loss benefits paid through May 11, 1982; (3) the delay in reading the rehabilitation report constituted negligent handling amounting to bad faith; (4) from May 12, 1982 to June 29, 1982, no reasonable basis existed for mispayment; therefore reclassification for that period is not allowed under Belam Florida Corporation v. Dardy, 397 So.2d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); (5) that mispayment amounts to bad faith; (6) employer's bad faith goes directly to the issue of employer's acceptance of claimant as permanently and totally disabled; and (7) a reasonable fee for claimant's attorney with respect to employer's bad faith is $20,000. The deputy ordered employer to pay claimant PTD benefits for the period from May 12, 1982 through June 29, 1982, deeming the wage-loss benefits already paid for that period to be "a gratuity in accordance with the rule in Belam."
In Belam,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shaw v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.
...to credit to Employer/Carrier (E/C) for the wage-loss benefits ordered payable from November 24, 1990. See Swift & Co. v. Surrency, 467 So.2d 740, 741-42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The JCC found the number of job searches conducted by Claimant was "so few in number to be insufficient to constitut......
-
Kraft Dairy Group v. Sorge
...had "acted in bad faith" and that he had "suffered economic loss." Sec. 440.34(3)(b), Fla.Stat. (1981). See, e.g., Swift & Co. v. Surrency, 467 So.2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). We need not determine whether the record contains competent, substantial evidence to sustain the conclusion that the......