Faust v. Southeastern Contracting

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Faust v. Southeastern Contracting

604 So. 2d 41, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9769, 1992 WL 221628

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 11, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1077

StatusPublished

This text of 604 So. 2d 41 (Faust v. Southeastern Contracting) 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

Faust v. Southeastern Contracting, 604 So. 2d 41, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9769, 1992 WL 221628 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, the claimant challenges an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying his claim for temporary partial disability benefits (TPD) and wage loss benefits. Although we affirm the denial of wage loss benefits, we must remand the case to the JCC for clarification of the denial of TPD benefits. Paragraph 4 of the JCC’s order is capable of various interpretations, and we are unable to determine whether the claim was denied merely because the claimant failed to submit the required forms, or whether a more basic flaw was involved, such as a finding that the claimant’s lost earnings were not causally related to the industrial injuries. On remand, the claimant should be permitted to submit the necessary forms, see Tradewinds Manufacturing Co. v. Cox, 541 So.2d 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); A.C. Electric Co. v. Kwitchen, 525 So.2d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), and the JCC may hold further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

SHIVERS and MINER, JJ., concur. ALLEN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, the claimant challenges an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying his claim for temporary partial disability benefits (TPD) and wage loss benefits. Although we affirm the denial of wage loss benefits, we must remand the case to the JCC for clarification of the denial of TPD benefits. Paragraph 4 of the JCC’s order is capable of various interpretations, and we are unable to determine whether the claim was denied merely because the claimant failed to submit the required forms, or whether a more basic flaw was involved, such as a finding that the claimant’s lost earnings were not causally related to the industrial injuries. On remand, the claimant should be permitted to submit the necessary forms, see Tradewinds Manufacturing Co. v. Cox, 541 So.2d 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); A.C. Electric Co. v. Kwitchen, 525 So.2d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), and the JCC may hold further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

SHIVERS and MINER, JJ., concur. ALLEN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

604 So. 2d 41, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9769, 1992 WL 221628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faust-v-southeastern-contracting-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack