Owen Steel Co. v. Robinson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Owen Steel Co. v. Robinson

687 So. 2d 352, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 937, 1997 WL 49371

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 10, 1997

DocketNo. 96-1855

StatusPublished

This text of 687 So. 2d 352 (Owen Steel Co. v. Robinson) 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

Owen Steel Co. v. Robinson, 687 So. 2d 352, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 937, 1997 WL 49371 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

BARFIELD, Chief Judge.

In this workers’ compensation case, the finding of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) that the claimant suffered a compensa-ble injury is affirmed, as is the award of medical benefits. However, the award of wage loss benefits is reversed because the JCC’s finding, that the claimant “met his burden of demonstrating that his physical limitations were a contributing causal factor in his wage loss,” is not supported by the record and because the claimant failed to file the wage loss request forms required by section 440.15(3)(b)2, Florida Statutes, and Rule 38F3.017(1), Florida Administrative Code, without any excuse. See Van Doran v. Pope Company, 657 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Atlantic Sugar Association v. Raga, 652 So.2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Litvin v. St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Department, 599 So.2d 1353 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 613 So.2d 6 (Fla.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 913, 113 S.Ct. 2350, 124 L.Ed.2d 258 (1993).

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

ERVIN and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

BARFIELD, Chief Judge.

In this workers’ compensation case, the finding of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) that the claimant suffered a compensa-ble injury is affirmed, as is the award of medical benefits. However, the award of wage loss benefits is reversed because the JCC’s finding, that the claimant “met his burden of demonstrating that his physical limitations were a contributing causal factor in his wage loss,” is not supported by the record and because the claimant failed to file the wage loss request forms required by section 440.15(3)(b)2, Florida Statutes, and Rule 38F3.017(1), Florida Administrative Code, without any excuse. See Van Doran v. Pope Company, 657 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Atlantic Sugar Association v. Raga, 652 So.2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Litvin v. St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Department, 599 So.2d 1353 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 613 So.2d 6 (Fla.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 913, 113 S.Ct. 2350, 124 L.Ed.2d 258 (1993).

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

ERVIN and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

687 So. 2d 352, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 937, 1997 WL 49371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owen-steel-co-v-robinson-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack