A.C. Electric Co. v. Kwitchen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

A.C. Electric Co. v. Kwitchen

525 So. 2d 993, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1256, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2294

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 25, 1988

DocketNo. 87-612

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 525 So. 2d 993 (A.C. Electric Co. v. Kwitchen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A.C. Electric Co. v. Kwitchen, 525 So. 2d 993, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1256, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2294 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

MILLS, Judge.

A.C. Electric Company and FEISCO (E/C) appeal an order of the deputy commissioner awarding Kwitchen wage-loss benefits. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

We affirm the deputy’s findings of Kwitchen’s entitlement to wage-loss benefits in that he met his burden of showing that his compensable physical limitation was a contributing causative factor to his wage-loss. See School Board of Manatee County v. Gambuzza, 510 So.2d 992, 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

However, a portion of the award was made from 4 October 1986 to 27 January 1987. The record reflects that a wage-loss form was filed only for the period 4 October to 24 October 1986. As this court held in Old Cove Condo v. Curry, 511 So.2d 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) without such forms indicating the amount of wages, if any, actually earned by Kwitchen, and any other benefits that may have been received by him, it is impossible to determine accurately the amount of wage-loss benefits due. Old Cove at 669.

We therefore reverse the wage-loss award for the period from 25 October 1986 to 27 January 1987 and remand with directions that Kwitchen be required to complete and file benefit forms for that period. The deputy’s order is in all other respects affirmed.

SHIVERS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MILLS, Judge.

A.C. Electric Company and FEISCO (E/C) appeal an order of the deputy commissioner awarding Kwitchen wage-loss benefits. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

We affirm the deputy’s findings of Kwitchen’s entitlement to wage-loss benefits in that he met his burden of showing that his compensable physical limitation was a contributing causative factor to his wage-loss. See School Board of Manatee County v. Gambuzza, 510 So.2d 992, 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

However, a portion of the award was made from 4 October 1986 to 27 January 1987. The record reflects that a wage-loss form was filed only for the period 4 October to 24 October 1986. As this court held in Old Cove Condo v. Curry, 511 So.2d 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) without such forms indicating the amount of wages, if any, actually earned by Kwitchen, and any other benefits that may have been received by him, it is impossible to determine accurately the amount of wage-loss benefits due. Old Cove at 669.

We therefore reverse the wage-loss award for the period from 25 October 1986 to 27 January 1987 and remand with directions that Kwitchen be required to complete and file benefit forms for that period. The deputy’s order is in all other respects affirmed.

SHIVERS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

525 So. 2d 993, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1256, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ac-electric-co-v-kwitchen-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack