Wellcraft Marine Corp. v. Turner, AP-56
| Decision Date | 30 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. AP-56,AP-56 |
| Citation | 435 So.2d 864 |
| Parties | WELLCRAFT MARINE CORPORATION and Crawford and Company, Appellants, v. Judy A. TURNER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John J. O'Riorden of Dickinson, O'Riorden, Gibbons, Quale, Shields & Carlton, Sarasota, for appellants.
Alex Lancaster, Sarasota, for appellee.
The employer/carrier (E/C) appeals from the deputy commissioner's order awarding wage-loss benefits. The E/C asserts that the deputy erred because the claimant failed to present evidence supporting a finding of a permanent physical impairment as required by Section 440.15(3)(b), Florida Statutes. The deputy, however, ruled that the claimant was not required to present such evidence because this was the subject of a prior wage-loss hearing which resulted in an unappealed order awarding wage-loss benefits.
The hearing resulting in the appealed order was the third wage-loss hearing held before the deputy commissioner. The first wage-loss hearing in April, 1981, resulted in an order denying the claim on the grounds that the claimant had not made an adequate job search. A subsequent wage-loss claim heard in October, 1981, resulted in an order awarding the claimant wage-loss benefits, the order expressly finding that the accident resulted in permanent impairment. The E/C did not appeal that order.
Except to the extent modification is permitted by Section 440.28, Florida Statutes, deputies' compensation orders are governed by the same principles of res judicata and estoppel as are applied to judgments of courts. Power v. Joseph G. Moretti, Inc., 120 So.2d 443 (Fla.1960); City of West Palm Beach v. Chisolm, 405 So.2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); compare Flesche v. Interstate Warehouse, 411 So.2d 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Although the statutory scheme governing a claimant's entitlement to wage-loss benefits affords the employer/carrier the right to contest on appropriate grounds succeeding wage-loss claims, §§ 440.15(3)(b), 440.185(10), and 440.20, Florida Statutes, there would be no justification for requiring the parties to relitigate the element of permanent impairment after the same has been determined in a wage-loss proceeding. We hold that estoppel by judgment precludes the E/C from relitigating the issue of permanent impairment.
This, of course, does not mean that the E/C would be foreclosed from controverting the claim on the basis of an alleged change in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baksalary v. Smith
...552, 625 P.2d 707 (1981) (presentation of documentary and deposition evidence to a jury), Florida see Wellcraft Marine Corp. v. Turner, 435 So.2d 864, 865 (Fla. App. 3 Dist.1983) (employer/carrier has burden of proof in any contested disability termination proceeding), and Maine, see Merrif......
-
Keller Kitchen Cabinets v. Holder, 88-3204
...are governed by the same principles of res judicata and estoppel as are applied to judgments of courts. Wellcraft Marine Corporation v. Turner, 435 So.2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). 4 Since the 1980 order established that appellee reached MMI from his knee injury in 1980, the TTD awarded in th......
-
City of Tampa v. Lewis
...applicable to the judgments or decrees of courts. Wurwarg v. Lighthouse Restaurant, 131 So.2d 469 (Fla.1961); Wellcraft Marine Corp. v. Turner, 435 So.2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Akins v. Hudson Pulp & Paper Co., 330 So.2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Here the parties to the worker's compensati......
-
City of Miami v. Simpson
...of wage-loss. Although the doctrine of res judicata is generally applicable to workers' compensation cases, Wellcraft Marine Corp. v. Turner, 435 So.2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), it has no relevancy to the facts at bar. The only item concerning wage-loss in the decretal portion of the 1983 or......