Kraszewski v. Florida Highway Patrol

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kraszewski v. Florida Highway Patrol

594 So. 2d 838, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1871, 1992 WL 36298

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 27, 1992

DocketNo. 90-02328

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 594 So. 2d 838 (Kraszewski v. Florida Highway Patrol) 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

Kraszewski v. Florida Highway Patrol, 594 So. 2d 838, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1871, 1992 WL 36298 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The prior opinion of this court, reported at 559 So.2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), affirmed in part but remanded solely for the judge of compensation claims to rule on claimant’s entitlement to temporary partial disability or wage-loss benefits from May 20, 1987 through the date of hearing. The cause is again before us on appeal from the order below denying claimant benefits. The order sought to be reviewed indicates that although claimant was not provided notice and information regarding job search and wage-loss responsibilities, claimant has returned to her full-time, pre-accident job with the Florida Highway Patrol and, for personal reasons, did not resume off-duty work. The JCC ruled, in pertinent part, as follows:

[Ujnder the circumstances of this case, I do not believe the notice requirement¹ or lack of evidence of a job search are determinative of the issues or entitlement to these benefits. The Claimant testified that she opted for a variety of reasons not to work off-duty after [she] returned to work full time for the FHP in May of 1987. One of these reasons was her desire to stay home with her infant son....

In this case, the lack of a job search for off-duty employment is not the reason justifying the denial of the wage loss benefits. It is the fact that the Claimant elected not to work at a second job for personal reasons. The Claimant has failed to establish any causally related disability or wage loss after May 20, 1989 as a result of her compensable injury. Glades Correctional Inst. v. Bukowski, 528 So.2d 58 (Fla. 1DCA 1988)[.]

Our review of the record shows that this finding is supported by competent, substantial evidence, and accordingly, we affirm the order below.

BOOTH, SMITH and WIGGINTON, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The prior opinion of this court, reported at 559 So.2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), affirmed in part but remanded solely for the judge of compensation claims to rule on claimant’s entitlement to temporary partial disability or wage-loss benefits from May 20, 1987 through the date of hearing. The cause is again before us on appeal from the order below denying claimant benefits. The order sought to be reviewed indicates that although claimant was not provided notice and information regarding job search and wage-loss responsibilities, claimant has returned to her full-time, pre-accident job with the Florida Highway Patrol and, for personal reasons, did not resume off-duty work. The JCC ruled, in pertinent part, as follows:

[Ujnder the circumstances of this case, I do not believe the notice requirement¹ or lack of evidence of a job search are determinative of the issues or entitlement to these benefits. The Claimant testified that she opted for a variety of reasons not to work off-duty after [she] returned to work full time for the FHP in May of 1987. One of these reasons was her desire to stay home with her infant son....

In this case, the lack of a job search for off-duty employment is not the reason justifying the denial of the wage loss benefits. It is the fact that the Claimant elected not to work at a second job for personal reasons. The Claimant has failed to establish any causally related disability or wage loss after May 20, 1989 as a result of her compensable injury. Glades Correctional Inst. v. Bukowski, 528 So.2d 58 (Fla. 1DCA 1988)[.]

Our review of the record shows that this finding is supported by competent, substantial evidence, and accordingly, we affirm the order below.

BOOTH, SMITH and WIGGINTON, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

594 So. 2d 838, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1871, 1992 WL 36298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kraszewski-v-florida-highway-patrol-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack