Alterman v. Armband

414 So. 2d 1181, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20277
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 11, 1982
DocketNo. AD-77
StatusPublished

This text of 414 So. 2d 1181 (Alterman v. Armband) 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
Alterman v. Armband, 414 So. 2d 1181, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20277 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse that portion of the order in this workers’ compensation proceeding awarding to the appellee-claimant a fifty percent (50%) permanent partial disability, based upon loss of wage earning capacity, because claimant’s work search was inadequate, and there is no finding that an adequate work search was excused.1

The deputy commissioner evidently was of the opinion that claimant’s disabilities, pain and weakness in her hands which severely impaired her use of her hands and her manual dexterity in general, impacted her ability to obtain or to carry out employment to a greater extent than was reflected by her relatively low (5%) permanent anatomical impairment of the body as a whole. Accordingly, as we did in Scotty’s Inc. v. Jones, 393 So.2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), we remand to the deputy commissioner for further proceedings and findings with respect to claimant’s wage earning capacity loss, including consideration of any additional evidence on this point which may be submitted by the parties.2

We affirm the deputy commissioner’s finding of five percent (5%) permanent anatomical disability of the body as a whole, since there was competent, substantial evidence to support this finding. In view of our reversal of the wage earning capacity award, however, we also reverse the award of attorney’s fees and remand to the deputy commissioner for further consideration, in the light of our ruling, with respect to benefits obtained by virtue of the services of claimant’s attorney, and the entitlement to attorney’s fees for the same. The order as to costs is affirmed.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

MILLS, LARRY G. SMITH and SHAW, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Scotty's, Inc. v. Jones
393 So. 2d 657 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
City of Hollywood v. Castora
380 So. 2d 1148 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Mahler v. Lauderdale Lakes National Bank
322 So. 2d 507 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1975)
Wesley's, Inc. v. Caramello
156 So. 2d 853 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1963)
Florida Division of Corrections v. Morgan
382 So. 2d 1288 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
414 So. 2d 1181, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alterman-v-armband-fladistctapp-1982.