Wiley Jackson Co. v. Webster, BR-387

• Decision Date: 25 March 1988
• Docket Number: No. BR-387,BR-387
• Citation: 13 Fla. L. Weekly 770,522 So.2d 987
• Parties: 13 Fla. L. Weekly 770 WILEY JACKSON COMPANY and Underwriters Adjusting Company, Appellants, v. John WEBSTER, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 987

522 So.2d 987

13 Fla. L. Weekly 770

WILEY JACKSON COMPANY and Underwriters Adjusting Company, Appellants, v.John WEBSTER, Appellee.

No. BR-387.

District Court of Appeal of Florida First District.

March 25, 1988.

David C. Chafin of Whittaker, Stump & Webster, Orlando, for appellants.

C. Thomas Ferrara, Altamonte Springs, for appellee.

NIMMONS, Judge.

In this workers' compensation case, the employer and carrier challenge the award of wage-loss benefits and the determination of average weekly wage.While we conclude that there is competent substantial evidence to support the award of wage-loss benefits in this case, we find that the language of the decretal portion of the deputy commissioner's order granting such benefits requires modification.We further find it necessary to reverse the deputy's average weekly wage determination.

The deputy found in his final order that the claimant was entitled to full wage-loss benefits "from September 11, 1986 through the present, and continuing until such time as the employer/carrier provides rehabilitation to the claimant by a private rehabilitation facility."We agree with appellants that this award is erroneous as a matter of law.

Wage-loss benefits are monthly benefits.Section 440.20(4), Florida Statutes(1985).Wage-loss claims must be filed on a month-by-month basis, and each request for wage-loss benefits constitutes a new and separate claim.Regency Inn v. Johnson, 422 So.2d 870(Fla. 1st DCA1982);Deltona Corporation v. Morris, 418 So.2d 1274(Fla. 1st DCA1982)andCouture Fashions, Inc. v. Romay, 461 So.2d 235(Fla. 1st DCA1984).In accordance with these general principles, this court has recognized that an order awarding wage-loss benefits to be paid "to the date of hearing and continuing" is improper.Deltona Corporation, 418 So.2d at 1276.See alsoVeterans Septic Tank Service v. Wallace, 445 So.2d 389(Fla. 1st DCA1984)(holding that the language "and continuing" in the decretal portion of the order awarding claimant wage-loss benefits for the period August 1, 1982 to April 1, 1983, and continuing was error).We recognized in those cases, however, that an award of wage-loss benefits "so long as such benefits are proper" or "so long as claimant is entitled to such benefits" is appropriate.Such language does not imply an open-end award and is "sufficiently finite as it necessarily allows for flexibility and encompasses the possibility of a determination of a wage-loss on a month-by-month basis."Deltona Corporation, 418 So.2d at 1276.

The language used in the present case, "and continuing until such time as the employer/carrier provide rehabilitation to the claimant by a private rehabilitation facility," does not encompass the possibility of a determination of...