Blog

FL Case Law Summaries – 3/25/16

BY:

Thomas G. Portuallo

To receive daily e-mails with case law summaries, e-mail: Colette Duke

JCC ORDERS

Michael Morales v. MK Automotive Management, LLC/Summit

JCC Hill; Gainesville District; Order Date: March 22, 2016

OJCC Case: 15-029463MRH; D/A: 4/6/2015

Claimant’s Counsel: Mark Tipton

Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: David Beach

Briefly: ATTORNEY’S FEES – JCC Hill awarded attorney’s fees for attending claimant’s deposition when no Petition for Benefits was pending based upon a $325 hourly rate, resulting in an attorney’s fee of $975, plus costs.


Iraida Rolland v. Rural King/Sedgwick CMS

JCC Rosen; St. Petersburg District; Order Date: March 22, 2016

OJCC Case: 15-021674SLR; D/A: 7/18/2015

Claimant’s Counsel: Stephen Barbas

Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: Christopher A. Thorne & Joseph Coughlan

Briefly: TPD; VOLUNTARILY LIMITATION OF INCOME – JCC Rosen awarded TPD benefits for certain periods of time, but also denied TPD for other periods of time on the grounds that claimant voluntarily limited her income.  When awarding TPD, the JCC did so based upon the claimant’s difficulty in communication, conflicting testimony regarding claimant’s works status, and due to the fact that she had a knee brace, was taking pain medication, and was undergoing physical therapy.  When denying TPD, the JCC found the claimant voluntarily limited her income by failing to accept offered employment within her restrictions.

Summary: The JCC accepted the claimant’s testimony that she can no longer work for the Employer/Carrier because of the restrictions on her knee, that the knee brace made it dangerous for her to drive her car, and that she was taking pain medication.  The JCC found that because of the difficulty in communication and conflicting testimony regarding claimant’s work status with the Employer and taking into consideration the fact that claimant had a knee brace and medication, as well as undergoing physical therapy, that the claimant is entitled to temporary partial disability benefits for certain periods of time.

However, the JCC also denied TPD for other periods of time and found that claimant was discharged from her subsequent employment for cause and misconduct and voluntarily limited her income by not accepting a job offered by the Employer