Case ID: so2d_450/html/0317-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BARFIELD, Judge. WENTWORTH, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PLYMOUTH CITRUS PRODUCTS and Corporate Group Service, Appellants, v. Sarah WOODARD, Appellee.
    No. AU-496.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 22, 1984.
    James B. Cantrell of Sparks, Cooper & Leklem, P.A., Orlando, for appellants.
    Edward H. Hurt of Hurt & Parrish, and Bill McCabe of Shepherd, McCabe & Cooley, Orlando, for appellee.
   BARFIELD, Judge.

In this workers’ compensation case the employer appeals the deputy commissioner’s final order awarding wage-loss benefits to claimant from April 13, 1983 to July 1, 1983 and awarding costs. We reverse.

Claimant sustained a work-related injury in December 1981. Her job in the canning industry was seasonal and subject to layoffs. The period for which wage-loss benefits were awarded in this case occurred during one such layoff. Although the deputy commissioner found that claimant had made an adequate job search during the period for which wage-loss benefits were claimed, he did not make a specific finding that claimant had satisfied her burden of establishing that the wage-loss was the result of the compensable injury. There is no competent substantial evidence in the record to support such a finding.

The order of the deputy commissioner dated August 12, 1983 is REVERSED.

ZEHMER, J. concurs.

WENTWORTH, J., concurs specially with an opinion in which ZEHMER, J., concurs.

WENTWORTH, Judge,

concurring.

I agree that the work search evidence does not in this case establish a causal connection between wage loss and injury, but would note that benefits are not precluded simply because the period of wage loss occurred after a layoff unrelated to the compensable injury. In this case claimant had been a seasonal worker for 16 years, and the record evidence on the claim shows only a period of seasonal unemployment in the same pattern previously established. Work search under these circumstances, however adequate and unsuccessful, would not, standing alone, establish prima facie that her injury effected a change in her employment status entitling her to wage loss benefits. Cf., Lasher Milling Co. v. Brown, 427 So.2d 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Regency Inn v. Johnson, 422 So.2d 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).