Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

November 20, 2015 by admin

Workers’ compensation — Where claimant filed third petition seeking additional impairment benefits prior to hearing on first petition for benefits, judge of compensation claims went beyond the scope of issues before her when she essentially denied additional impairment benefits sought in third petition after having reserved jurisdiction over claim raised in third petition

40
Fla. L. Weekly D2602b
Top of Form

Workers’
compensation — Where claimant filed third petition seeking additional
impairment benefits prior to hearing on first petition for benefits, judge of
compensation claims went beyond the scope of issues before her when she
essentially denied additional impairment benefits sought in third petition
after having reserved jurisdiction over claim raised in third petition — JCC
properly denied claim for permanent total disability benefits where claimant
did not prove elements of claim — JCC properly rejected constitutional
challenge to 104-week statutory limit on temporary benefits

JOSE GOMEZ-LUJANO, Appellant, v. PALM BEACH GRILL-HOUSTON’S
RESTAURANT AND TRAVELERS INSURANCE, Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D15-670.
Opinion filed November 19, 2015. An appeal from an order of the Judge of
Compensation Claims. Shelley H. Punancy, Judge. Date of Accident: October 31,
2001. Counsel: Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L.L., Fort Lauderdale,
for Appellant. Jerry M. Hayden and Willie B. Ramhofer of Vernis and Bowling,
P.A., Miami, for Appellees.

(PER CURIAM.) Claimant, Jose Gomez-Lujano, appeals a final order
entered by the Judge of Compensation of Claims (JCC) denying indemnity benefits
and associated penalties, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees (PICA). Claimant
argues that the JCC exceeded the scope of her review when she denied additional
impairment benefits (IBs), that she misinterpreted case law when she denied the
request for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits and associated PICA, and
that the JCC’s denial of his claims for temporary disability benefits on the
basis of the 104-week statutory limitation violated his constitutional rights
to access to courts and to due process. For the reasons explained below, we
affirm the order as modified.

Background

Claimant suffered a compensable injury on October 31, 2001.
As a result of the injury, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) provided medical care,
104 weeks’ worth of temporary indemnity benefits ending on December 3, 2004,
and impairment benefits. Claimant returned to work from 2005 until April 2007,
when he underwent shoulder surgery for one of his compensable injuries. As a
result, Claimant was removed from work from April 30, 2007, to June 12, 2007,
and was restricted from working full duty from June 13, 2007, to September 14,
2007.

Claimant filed two petitions for benefits seeking additional
temporary disability benefits and associated PICA, or, in the alternative, PTD
benefits and associated PICA. Prior to the hearing on the first petition,
Claimant filed a third petition seeking additional IBs; this claim was not
mediated before the hearing. The E/C contested the claims raised in the
original petitions and, in the alternative, sought an offset or credit against
any award of temporary or permanent disability benefits for the IBs it had
already paid. The E/C and Claimant agreed that the JCC should reserve
jurisdiction to address the claim raised in the third petition.

In the order on appeal, the JCC reserved jurisdiction over
the claim raised in the third petition, but she also stated, “no additional
impairment benefits are owed to Claimant.” Relying on the 104-week statutory
limitation contained in paragraphs 440.15(2)(a) and 440.15(4)(b), Florida
Statutes (2001), the JCC denied the request for temporary benefits. The JCC
also denied the request for PTD benefits, reasoning that Claimant did not meet
his burden to prove entitlement to such under the law in effect on the date of
his accident. As a result of these rulings, the JCC denied the request for
PICA. This timely appeal follows.

Analysis

We agree with both parties that the JCC went beyond the
scope of the issues before her when she essentially denied the additional IBs
sought in the third petition, despite having also reserved jurisdiction
(creating an inconsistency). The JCC should have reserved jurisdiction over
these issues. See § 440.25(2), Fla. Stat. (requiring mediation of claims
unless waived by the deputy chief judge of compensation claims); Parodi v.
Fla. Contracting Co., Inc.
, 16 So. 3d 958, 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (holding
JCC properly reserved jurisdiction on unmediated petitions for benefits); Isaac
v. Green Iguana, Inc.
, 871 So. 2d 1004, 1006 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (reversing
a JCC’s ruling reached in absence of prior notice and opportunity to defend
because it offended the procedural due process right of a claimant).
Accordingly, we strike the following sentence from the order: “I therefore
conclude that no additional impairment benefits are owed to Claimant.”

The JCC properly applied our decision in Westphal v. City
of St. Petersburg
, 122 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (en banc), when she
denied the requests for PTD benefits and for temporary benefits beyond the
104-week statutory limitation. Westphal supplants a claimant’s need to
establish attainment of MMI, but not a claimant’s need to prove the other
elements of a claim for PTD benefits. Id. at 441. Because Westphal
makes a claimant “eligible to assert a claim for permanent and total disability
benefits,” but it does not automatically entitle a claimant to the payment of
such benefits, Claimant was still required to present evidence that he
otherwise meets the legal standards for such an award.

Finally, with regards to the JCC’s denial of the request for
temporary benefits, this Court has recently rejected similar constitutional
challenges to the 104-week statutory limit on temporary benefits. See Vancamp
v. Decision HR 30, Inc.
, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D1941 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 19,
2015); Ramirez v. Jorda Enters., Inc., 164 So. 3d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA
2015). Thus, we affirm the denial of PTD, additional temporary benefits, and
associated PICA.

AFFIRMED
AS MODIFIED. (LEWIS, THOMAS, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.)

* *
*

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982