Skip to main content

Hit Products v Sakiba Krivdic

This April 12, 2012 1DCA decision affirmed a JCC decision of Judge Remsnyder.

This case shows the relative ease that a claimant can get an initial $2,000 advance. At the JCC level, the claimant was awarded a $2,000 advance because there was competent substantial evidence to support that the Claimant had been unable to return to the same or equivalent employment. The employer/carrier disagreed with the JCC ruling and appealed. The first DCA affirmed the JCC's ruling concerning the advance.

The 1DCA held that there was competent substantial evidence to support the JCC’s finding that the Claimant has been unable to return to the same or equivalent employment,and was eligible for an advance of $2,000 under § 440.20(12)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010).

FYI
Under 440.20(12)(c), there are 3 requisites for an award of an advance of $2,000 or less:

1:  The Claimant has been unable to return to the same or equivalent employment with no substantial reduction in wages;or

2: The claimant has suffered a substantial loss of earning capacity; or

3: The claimant has a physical impairment, actual or apparent.

In most cases, it would appear that a claimant would be able to satisfy at least one of these requirements. The advance "shall be entitled to be reimbursed out of any unpaid installment or installments of compensation due. A carrier can deduct a maximum of 20% of any future payments of compensation in order to be reimbursed for the advance.

Remember, "in no event may any such advance payment under this paragraph be granted in excess of $7,500 or 26 weeks of benefits in any 48-month period, whichever is greater, from the date of the last advance payment."

Click here to see the 1DCA opinion
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CESPEDES V YELLOW TRANSPORTATION

This April 24, 2013 1DCA opinion affirmed in part and reversed in part Judge Portuallo's JCC decision. in this case, the claimant argued that the JCC erred by: (1) improperly shifting onto Claimant the burden to prove  the compensable injury was the major contributing cause (MCC) of his disability and need for surgery;  (2) finding  that the medical services at issue did not constitute “emergency care or services,” and that lack of notice to the  Employer/Carrier (E/C)  precluded authorization or payment; and  (3) finding  the opinion testimony from the emergency room physician, Dr. Acebal, is not admissible  pursuant to the “self-help” provisions contained in chapter 440.  The 1DCA reversed on the first two grounds raised and affirmed on the last. As background, the Claimant injured his lower back in 2006.  the Claimant declined surgical treatment, and ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Williams V City of Orlando

This June 13, 2012 1DCA reversed Judge Condry's JCC decision. The JCC denied compensability of the claimant's hypertension on the ground she failed to establish eligibility to rely on the statutory presumption occupational causation available via section 112.18. The claimant met three of the four requirements of section 112.18: 1    She was a police officer, 2    Her condition resulted in disability, 3    She successfully passed a physical examination upon entering into service. The JCC found that the claimant's essential hypertension did not meet the 4th requirement which indicates that the condition itself be one of those listed in section 112.18: "tuberculosis, heart disease, or hypertension. The claimant was diagnosed with essential hypertension. She introduced unrefuted medical opinion testimony that essential hypertension was the same thing and the same condition as arterial hypertension. In Bivens v. City of ...
Post a Comment
Read more