United General Construction v. Cason
This text of 522 So. 2d 47 (United General Construction v. Cason) 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.
Opinion
In this worker’s compensation appeal the employer and carrier, United General Construction and Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, assert that the deputy commissioner erred by 1) ordering the employer and carrier to pay penalties, and 2) by awarding wage loss benefits. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
We reverse the deputy’s order as to the assessment of penalties, for two reasons. First, we reverse because the order does not include a finding of fact or conclusion of law regarding the penalties awarded (in either the current or 1985 order). See Florida Power and Light Co. v. Mulkerrin, 444 So.2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Stardust Motel v. St. Claire, 418 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Our second reason for reversal is because claimant concedes that the assessment of penalties against the employer and carrier pursuant to section 440.20 Florida Statutes, was error, except for September and October 1985, and February 1986.1 There is noth[49]*49ing in the record before us indicating that the employer and carrier controverted the claims filed for September and October 1985. There is documentation that the employer and carrier controverted the February 1986 claim, but in an untimely fashion. We remand the matter to the deputy for a review and clarification because in his order, the deputy ordered penalties after expressly finding that the wage loss forms filed by claimant were “controverted by the carrier.”
We affirm the wage loss award. This case was previously before this court. See United General Construction v. Cason, 479 So.2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), wherein this court affirmed the deputy’s previous finding of a one percent permanent physical impairment. We have reviewed the old record and again found that the deputy’s original award of wage loss benefits based on appellant’s shoulder injury was supported by competent substantial evidence. Further, Dr. Bush, claimant’s treating physician, stated that he had no reason to think that claimant is a malingerer, even though he can not medically explain the source of claimant’s continued discomfort. Also, there is evidence that claimant performed an adequate job search, but found that the only available jobs, such as cook and gas station attendant, did not pay as much as delivering bulk newspapers. Although claimant repeatedly contacted his contractor associates, the evidence reflects that none had jobs that he could perform adequately. Claimant was a carpenter all his life, fifteen to twenty years, and has limited training and education.
Finally, the deputy’s order is ambiguous in awarding wage loss from “November 1984 forward.” Neither party has cited authority helpful in resolving the ambiguity. Therefore, we direct the deputy [50]*50commissioner on remand to also clearly state the time period for which he is awarding wage loss benefits, penalties, and interest.
The award of wage loss is affirmed. However, we reverse the award of penalties and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
522 So. 2d 47, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 358, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 548, 1988 WL 8406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-general-construction-v-cason-fladistctapp-1988.