How To Get A Disability Payout



Similar documents
An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Gerardo Castiello, Judge.

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Thomas G. Portuallo, Judge.

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. John J. Lazzara, Judge.

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Donna S. Remsnyder, Judge.

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Thomas G. Portuallo, Judge.

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Margaret E. Sojourner, Judge.

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Paul T. Terlizzese, Judge.

David P. Healy of Law Offices of David P. Healy, PL, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Donna S. Remsnyder, Judge.

Supreme Court of Florida

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Gerardo Castiello, Judge.

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Ellen Lorenzen, Judge.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Juan A. Bello, Judge. Joy E. Greyer, West Palm Beach, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Business and Professional Regulation.

Florida Workers Compensation Law A Summary For The Injured Worker

Michael C. Clarke and Betsy E. Gallagher of Kubicki Draper, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

No SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1962-NMSC-127, 71 N.M. 113, 376 P.2d 176 September 20, 1962

Appellant S Permit Application - An Appeal From the Department of Business

CASE NO. 1D The instant appeal originated with a medical malpractice complaint filed by

CASE NO. 1D Alexander R. Boler of Agency for Healthcare Administration, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and J. Clifton Cox, Special Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D Bruce A. Gartner, of Bruce A. Gartner, P.A., Jacksonville Beach, for Appellee.

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS SEBASTIAN/MELBOURNE DISTRICT OFFICE

Key Provisions of Tennessee Senate Bill 200 Effective July 1, 2014, through July 1, 2016

No. 64,990. [April 25, 1985] We have for review Aetna Insurance Co. v. Norman, 444. So.2d 1124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), based upon express and direct

CASE NO. 1D John H. Adams, P. Michael Patterson, and Cecily M. Welsh of Emmanuel, Sheppard, and Condon, Pensacola, for Appellant.

IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. Petitioner/Appellant below DCA Case No.: 1D v. JUDGE : David Langham

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County. Paul S. Bryan, Judge.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. CASE NO.

CASE NO. 1D David K. Miller, of Broad and Cassel, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA COA ST. PAUL TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

LOUISIANA WORKERS COMPENSATION LAW CHANGES 2012

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1D The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) files this petition for writ

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT. Workers Compensation Commission Division A.D., 2009

COUNTY, BREVARD COUNTY, FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

Selling Insurance - Cause of Action in Florida

Illinois Official Reports

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

ON APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT "F" FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY

No. 45,056-WCA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * Versus * * * * * Ryan E. Gatti, Workers Compensation Judge * * * * *

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2014

Current Workers Compensation Law Compared to the 2013 Workers Compensation Reform Act

CASE NO. 1D Criminal Specialist Investigations, Inc., Petitioner, seeks a writ of certiorari

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1D George Gingo and James E. Orth, Jr. of Gingo & Orth, P.A., Titusville, for Appellant.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION 270 Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia (404) STATEMENT OF THE CASE

ATTORNEYS FEES IN FLORIDA WORKERS COMPENSATION CASES:

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation. Kevin M. McCarty, Commissioner.

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D14-360

No. 09SC586, Benchmark/Elite, Inc. v. Simpson, No. 09SC769, City of Colorado Springs v. Bennett Workers Compensation Maximum Rate of Benefits

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

AN ANALYSIS OF SEC. 10 OF THE ILLINOIS WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT

CASE NOTES TO RECEIVE CASE NOTES VIA , PLEASE SEND REQUEST TO CASE LAW SUMMARIES: June, 2006

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

Supreme Court of Florida

Attorney Fees. Prepared by Whitney L. Teel, Esq. The type of fees payable in a workers compensation case depends upon the type of benefit recovered.

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2013

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

With regard to the coverage issue 1 : With regard to the stacking issue 2 :

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2013 WY 86

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

How To Get A Court To Exempt A Public Record From The Law

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2011

PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D14-279

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. Osvaldo Caceres v. Sadano s Supermarkets, 1 st DCA Case No. 1D (June 9, 2010)

Appellant, CASE NO. 1D

CASE NO. 1D Peter S. Roumbos and Joseph A. Kopacz of Young, Bill, Roumbos & Boles, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellants.

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT OFFICE

2014 CO 5. No. 11SC926, Harman-Bergstedt, Inc. v. Loofbourrow Workers Compensation.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED OF FLORIDA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NO Filed 6/21/10 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PRESIDING JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH delivered the opinion of

How To Get Benefits From The Second Injury Fund

Workers Compensation and Seniors

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2013

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2010

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Lafayette County. Harlow H. Land, Jr., Judge.

CASE NO. 1D Eugene McCosky is petitioning this Court to grant a writ of certiorari, requiring

How To Get A $1.5 Multiplier On Attorney'S Fees In Florida

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1D Karusha Y. Sharpe, John K. Londot and M. Hope Keating, of Greenberg Traurig, P.A. Tallahassee, for Appellee.

[July 16, REVISED OPINION. We have for review two cases of the district courts of

Where Do I Start? A Guide for Injured Workers

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 2:12-cv KMM. versus

No WC IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION DIVISION

Supreme Court of Florida

Transcription:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SCHOOL BOARD OF LEE COUNTY AND JOHNS EASTERN COMPANY, INC., Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D14-4476 v. LEILA HUBEN, Appellee. / Opinion filed June 22, 2015. An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Kathy A. Sturgis, Judge. Date of Accident: April 3, 2007. Kimberly J. Fernandes of Kelley Kronenberg, P.A., Tallahassee, and Brian S. Bartley, Fort Meyers, for Appellants. Mark L. Zientz of the Law Offices of Mark L. Zientz, P.A., Miami, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. In this workers compensation case, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) awarding benefits to Claimant,

including an upward adjustment to the average weekly wage (AWW), temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits, temporary total disability (TTD) benefits, and penalties, interest, costs, and attorney s fees. The E/C raises four points on appeal: that the JCC should not have admitted into evidence the report of Claimant s independent medical examiner; that the JCC should have found Claimant voluntarily limited her income (and thus denied TPD benefits); that the JCC should not have awarded TTD benefits for Claimant s psychiatric injury; and that the JCC should not have awarded attorney s fees on the upward adjustment of AWW. We affirm the first two points without further comment. We affirm the fourth point as not yet ripe because the JCC has not yet determined the amount of the fee attributable to the AWW adjustment. We reverse in part the award of TTD benefits challenged on the third point, for the reasons that follow. The E/C contends that the award of TTD benefits contravenes section 440.093(3), which reads: Subject to the payment of permanent benefits under s. 440.15, in no event shall temporary benefits for a compensable mental or nervous injury be paid for more than 6 months after the date of maximum medical improvement for the injured employee s physical injury or injuries, which shall be included in the period of 104 weeks as provided in s. 440.15(2) and (4). Mental or nervous injuries are compensable only in accordance with the terms of this section. 440.093(3), Fla. Stat. (2006). In this case, it is undisputed that Claimant s compensable physical injury to her arm reached maximum medical improvement on 2

January 9, 2014; that she was receiving impairment benefits based on her twentypercent permanent impairment rating; that it was not until July 3, 2014, that Claimant obtained an admissible medical opinion that the compensable injury was the major contributing cause of her PTSD; and that the PTSD renders her temporarily totally disabled. The JCC awarded her TTD benefits from July 3, 2014 and continuing so long as she remains entitled to same, and subject to the limitations set forth in Section 440.093(3), which, the JCC ruled, should be construed as a cumulative period limiting the total number of months of benefits such benefits are payable after an injured worker reaches physical MMI, and not a consecutive month period. There is no question that the TTD award here is subject to section 440.093(3); the statute applies here because Claimant received impairment benefits. See W.G. Roe & Sons v. Razo-Guevara, 999 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). But we find error in the JCC s interpretation of the statute. See, e.g., Lombardi v. S. Wine & Spirits, 890 So. 2d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review). In contrast to the JCC s understanding, we read section 440.093(3) to set a strict deadline after which no TTD benefits are payable on psychiatric injuries. The plain language of the statute marks a date on the calendar, or starts a clock that stops six months to the day after the date of physical MMI. See, e.g., Perez v. Rooms To Go, 997 So. 2d 511, 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (holding that, in construing statute, 3

courts must first look to its plain language). The JCC drew a contrast between the operative language in section 440.093(3) in no event shall [the benefits] be paid for more than 6 months after [the date of physical MMI] and the operative language in section 440.15(2), which limits catastrophic TTD benefits by stating they must not extend beyond 6 months from the date of accident and which the JCC concluded was a clear consecutive month calendar period limitation. But to us the two statutes are more alike than dissimilar, and it appears significant that they both use the word months in contradistinction to the use of the word weeks in other statutes. Cf., e.g., Auman v. Leverock s Seafood House, 997 So. 2d 476, 478 (Fla 1st DCA 2008) (reaffirming that 104-week cap on temporary disability benefits, found in section 440.15, Florida Statutes, creates bank from which benefits are drawn and calculated cumulatively). Applying section 440.093(3) to the instant case, then, results in an award of TTD benefits from July 3, 2014, through July 9, 2014, the latter date being six months after Claimant attained physical MMI. Consequently, the JCC s award of TTD benefits for the period beyond July 9, 2014, is reversed, and the case is remanded for entry of an order in accordance with this result. Our holding should provide some measure of predictability for the bench and bar alike. To the extent this holding may lead to results in some cases that contravene the purpose of the Florida Workers Compensation Law to assure the quick and 4

efficient delivery of disability and medical benefits to an injured worker and to facilitate the worker s return to gainful reemployment at a reasonable cost to the employer, 440.015, Fla. Stat. (2006), we leave it to the Legislature to remedy the situation. [I]f the legislature did not contemplate such a result, it can always amend the statute to make its purpose clear. Auman, 997 So. 2d at 479 (Webster, J., concurring). AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR. 5