Seibels Bruce Insurance Co. v. Chambers

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Seibels Bruce Insurance Co. v. Chambers

637 So. 2d 387, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5719, 1994 WL 256864

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 14, 1994

DocketNo. 93-400

StatusPublished

This text of 637 So. 2d 387 (Seibels Bruce Insurance Co. v. Chambers) 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

Seibels Bruce Insurance Co. v. Chambers, 637 So. 2d 387, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5719, 1994 WL 256864 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, the employer and carrier seek review of an order which awarded claimant permanent total disability benefits from the date of maximum medical improvement. They raise two issues: (1) whether the record contains competent, substantial evidence to support the finding that claimant is permanently and totally disabled; and (2) whether it was error to award permanent total disability benefits from the date of maximum medical improvement. Our review of the record satisfies us that the finding of permanent and total disability is supported by competent, substantial evidénce. Accordingly, we affirm as to that issue, without further discussion. However, the record does not support the award of permanent total disability benefits from the date of maximum medical improvement because it is undisputed that claimant worked at non-sheltered employment for several months after that date. E.g., Webb-Owen Amoco v. Bryce, 636 So.2d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the order, and remand with directions that the judge of compensation claims establish a proper date for commencement of claimant’s permanent total disability benefits, based upon the present record.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

MINER, WEBSTER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, the employer and carrier seek review of an order which awarded claimant permanent total disability benefits from the date of maximum medical improvement. They raise two issues: (1) whether the record contains competent, substantial evidence to support the finding that claimant is permanently and totally disabled; and (2) whether it was error to award permanent total disability benefits from the date of maximum medical improvement. Our review of the record satisfies us that the finding of permanent and total disability is supported by competent, substantial evidénce. Accordingly, we affirm as to that issue, without further discussion. However, the record does not support the award of permanent total disability benefits from the date of maximum medical improvement because it is undisputed that claimant worked at non-sheltered employment for several months after that date. E.g., Webb-Owen Amoco v. Bryce, 636 So.2d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the order, and remand with directions that the judge of compensation claims establish a proper date for commencement of claimant’s permanent total disability benefits, based upon the present record.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

MINER, WEBSTER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

637 So. 2d 387, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5719, 1994 WL 256864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seibels-bruce-insurance-co-v-chambers-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack