R.J. Nicolli Painting Co. v. Potts

District Court of Appeal of Florida

R.J. Nicolli Painting Co. v. Potts

447 So. 2d 371, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12150

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 13, 1984

DocketNo. AU-21

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 447 So. 2d 371 (R.J. Nicolli Painting Co. v. Potts) 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

R.J. Nicolli Painting Co. v. Potts, 447 So. 2d 371, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12150 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

JOANOS, Judge.

In this appeal from a workers’ compensation order, appellants argue that they should not be required to pay wage loss benefits when claimant restricts his work search to union jobs only. We agree and reverse the deputy commissioner’s order.

Claimant’s restriction of his work search to union jobs only precludes an award of wage loss benefits, as an award of compensation requires a claimant to show that he has tested his employability in the open labor market after reaching maximum medical improvement. Exxon Co. v. Alexis, 370 So.2d 1128, 1132 (Fla.1978). We are not persuaded by claimant’s argument that the limited work search be excused due to union threats of fines for acceptance of non-union jobs. Any infringement of claimant’s rights resulted from union action and claimant’s acceptance of its policy in refusing non-union [372]*372employment commensurate with his abilities. Griffin v. Parrish Construction & Door Service, 409 So.2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

Accordingly, the deputy commissioner’s order is REVERSED.

SHIVERS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

JOANOS, Judge.

In this appeal from a workers’ compensation order, appellants argue that they should not be required to pay wage loss benefits when claimant restricts his work search to union jobs only. We agree and reverse the deputy commissioner’s order.

Claimant’s restriction of his work search to union jobs only precludes an award of wage loss benefits, as an award of compensation requires a claimant to show that he has tested his employability in the open labor market after reaching maximum medical improvement. Exxon Co. v. Alexis, 370 So.2d 1128, 1132 (Fla.1978). We are not persuaded by claimant’s argument that the limited work search be excused due to union threats of fines for acceptance of non-union jobs. Any infringement of claimant’s rights resulted from union action and claimant’s acceptance of its policy in refusing non-union [372]*372employment commensurate with his abilities. Griffin v. Parrish Construction & Door Service, 409 So.2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

Accordingly, the deputy commissioner’s order is REVERSED.

SHIVERS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

447 So. 2d 371, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rj-nicolli-painting-co-v-potts-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack