Hillsborough County School Board v. Brown

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hillsborough County School Board v. Brown

573 So. 2d 871, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9047, 1990 WL 188968

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 3, 1990

DocketNo. 90-88

StatusPublished

This text of 573 So. 2d 871 (Hillsborough County School Board v. Brown) 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

Hillsborough County School Board v. Brown, 573 So. 2d 871, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9047, 1990 WL 188968 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal of a workers’ compensation order, the employer/carrier (e/c) challenge an award of rehabilitation expenses which purported to reimburse claimant for her transportation to and from work. E/c contend that claimant failed to establish entitlement to rehabilitation benefits where she returned to her old job without suffering a reduction in wages. Moreover, e/c point out that transportation to and from work is not awardable as a rehabilitation expense. We agree, and reverse.

Claimant, who taught music at a number of appellant/employer’s schools, sustained compensable injuries in a fall on September 17, 1987. Because the injuries included a vertigo problem that prevented claimant from driving, she had to arrange for transportation upon her return to work for employer. Arrangements were frequently made on a day-to-day basis, and claimant would enlist her husband and son to drive her the considerable distance to work when a ride could not be arranged through other sources. In her claim for benefits, claimant sought transportation expenses as a form of rehabilitation.

In awarding the requested benefits, the Judge of Compensation Claims exceeded the scope of the rehabilitation provision. To be eligible for rehabilitation benefits, a claimant must offer competent substantial evidence that her compensable injury prevents her from earning wages equal to those earned prior to the injury. See § 440.49(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (1987); A.D. Builders, Inc. v. Johnston, 528 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). In the instant case, claimant was able to return to work for employ[872]*872er and did not require rehabilitation to achieve her pre-injury wage; thus, the award of rehabilitation benefits was improper. Furthermore, we are directed to no authority in which transportation to and from work was awarded as a rehabilitation benefit.

Accordingly, the award of rehabilitation benefits is REVERSED.

MINER and ALLEN, JJ., and CAWTHON, VICTOR (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal of a workers’ compensation order, the employer/carrier (e/c) challenge an award of rehabilitation expenses which purported to reimburse claimant for her transportation to and from work. E/c contend that claimant failed to establish entitlement to rehabilitation benefits where she returned to her old job without suffering a reduction in wages. Moreover, e/c point out that transportation to and from work is not awardable as a rehabilitation expense. We agree, and reverse.

Claimant, who taught music at a number of appellant/employer’s schools, sustained compensable injuries in a fall on September 17, 1987. Because the injuries included a vertigo problem that prevented claimant from driving, she had to arrange for transportation upon her return to work for employer. Arrangements were frequently made on a day-to-day basis, and claimant would enlist her husband and son to drive her the considerable distance to work when a ride could not be arranged through other sources. In her claim for benefits, claimant sought transportation expenses as a form of rehabilitation.

In awarding the requested benefits, the Judge of Compensation Claims exceeded the scope of the rehabilitation provision. To be eligible for rehabilitation benefits, a claimant must offer competent substantial evidence that her compensable injury prevents her from earning wages equal to those earned prior to the injury. See § 440.49(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (1987); A.D. Builders, Inc. v. Johnston, 528 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). In the instant case, claimant was able to return to work for employ[872]*872er and did not require rehabilitation to achieve her pre-injury wage; thus, the award of rehabilitation benefits was improper. Furthermore, we are directed to no authority in which transportation to and from work was awarded as a rehabilitation benefit.

Accordingly, the award of rehabilitation benefits is REVERSED.

MINER and ALLEN, JJ., and CAWTHON, VICTOR (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

573 So. 2d 871, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9047, 1990 WL 188968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hillsborough-county-school-board-v-brown-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack