Nicole Payne v. Allstaff Inc/Summit ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •          FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
    STATE OF FLORIDA
    _____________________________
    No. 1D17-4650
    _____________________________
    NICOLE PAYNE,
    Appellant,
    v.
    ALLSTAFF INC/SUMMIT,
    Appellees.
    _____________________________
    On appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.
    Stephen L. Rosen, Judge.
    Date of Accident: January 20, 2017.
    March 13, 2019
    PER CURIAM.
    In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant appeals the
    Judge of Compensation Claims’ (JCC’s) order denying her claim
    for temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits. The JCC gave
    several reasons for his denial, including his finding that
    Claimant’s disability and loss of wages were not caused by her
    compensable workplace injury. Although the JCC appears to have
    misconstrued the law on medical causation, we affirm because
    Claimant ultimately did not satisfy her prima facie burden to
    prove entitlement to TPD benefits.
    In January 2017, Claimant developed a left shoulder rash that
    she attributed to exposure to plastic at the workplace. The
    Employer/Carrier (E/C) conditionally accepted compensability of
    the rash under the pay-and-investigate provisions of section
    440.20(4), Florida Statutes (2016). In early March 2017, the E/C
    denied compensability when the treating physician opined that
    Claimant was at maximum medical improvement from a rash that
    had never been work-related in the first place. Based on previously
    assigned work restrictions for the rash, Claimant subsequently
    pursued claims for TPD benefits payable in January and February
    2017.
    TPD benefits under section 440.15(4)(a), Florida Statutes
    (2016), are payable “only if overall maximum medical
    improvement has not been reached and the medical conditions
    resulting from the accident create restrictions on the injured
    employee’s ability to return to work.” See Wyeth/Pharma Field
    Sales v. Toscano, 
    40 So. 3d 795
    , 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). As a
    general rule, a claimant bears the burden of proving entitlement
    to each requested workers’ compensation. See, e.g., Fitzgerald v.
    Osceola Cty. Sch. Bd., 
    974 So. 2d 1161
    , 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).
    But under the express language of section 440.20(4), the E/C here
    were obliged to provide “all benefits and compensation as if the
    claim had been accepted as compensable” during the pay-and-
    investigate period. Thus, Claimant met part of her burden to prove
    entitlement to the claimed benefits: her rash must be considered a
    compensable workplace injury through the date of the denial.
    Because compensability was established by operation of
    section 440.20(4), the JCC here erred as a matter of law to the
    extent that he denied TPD benefits based on the medical evidence
    that Claimant’s rash was never related to her employment.
    Nevertheless, Claimant’s prima facie burden here also included
    proof that her workplace injury caused a reduction of wages below
    80% of her pre-injury average weekly wage. § 440.15(4)(a), Fla.
    Stat. (2016). See, e.g., Toscano, 
    40 So. 3d at 799
    . As the JCC found,
    Claimant provided only vague and unpersuasive testimony to
    establish her post-injury wages and submitted no documentation.
    Because the record contains no competent substantial evidence
    demonstrating the requisite reduction of wages, Claimant cannot
    satisfy her burden entitling her to the claimed benefits. For that
    2
    reason, the JCC’s error as to section 440.20(4) is harmless, and the
    benefits are properly denied. We, therefore, AFFIRM the order
    below.
    WETHERELL, ROWE, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.
    _____________________________
    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
    _____________________________
    Bill McCabe, Longwood, and Kevin R. Gallagher of The Gallagher
    Law Group, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.
    H. George Kagan of H. George Kagan, P.A., Gulf Stream, for
    Appellees.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-4650

Filed Date: 3/13/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/13/2019