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

Miami Dade County School Board v Russ

This May 29, 2012 1DCA decision reverses Judge Hill's JCC decision. The claimant filed a PFB and the JCC determined that the “initial response” was the November 9 documents prepared by the EC (notice of appearance, request for production, letter of representation, notice of deposition, and letter to the mediator) the JCC concluded that because the E/C did not assert an SOL defense, the E/C had waived that defense. The E/C argued that its initial response to the Petition for Benefits was filed on November 10, 2009. Based on the case of Certain v. Big Johnson Concrete Pumping, Inc., 34 So. 3d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), the 1DCA ruled that that the “initial response” has to explicitly state a position either denying or conceding the particular claims therein.
Post a Comment
Read more

Falcon Farms v Espinoza

This February 23, 2012 1DCA decision affirmed in part and reversed in part Judge Hill's JCC decision. The issue at the JCC trial was a change in primary care physician. The JCC awarded the change of physician but also denied compensability of the accident. Both parties appealed. The E/C argued that the Claimant was not entitled to a change of physician because her condition was non-occupational. The Claimant cross-appealed arguing that the JCC’s finding of noncompensability is legally inconsistent with the  award of a change of physician.  The 1DCA addressed the cross-appeal first. The 1DCA affirmed the JCC's decision denying compensability of the accident. The 1DCA indicated that the claimant did not show that the JCC erred in ruling the accident not compensable. "The sole basis of Claimant’s challenge on compensability is that the order is incongruous with the award of a change of physician. Claimant did not present this argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more