Case Name: Dorothy COOPER, Appellant, v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1999-02-17
Citations: 734 So. 2d 1072
Docket Number: No. 97-1871
Parties: Dorothy COOPER, Appellant, v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Appellee.
Judges: PADOVANO, J., CONCURS.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 734
Pages: 1072–1075

Head Matter:
Dorothy COOPER, Appellant, v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Appellee.
No. 97-1871
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Feb. 17, 1999.
Rehearing Denied July 8, 1999.
Louis K. Rosenbloum; Mark J. Proctor of Levin, Middlebrooks, Thomas, Mitchell, Green, Proctor, Echsner & Papantonio, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant.
Joseph L. Hammons of Hammons & Whittaker, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellee.

Opinion:
VAN NORTWICK, J.
In this worker's compensation case, Dorothy Cooper appeals the final order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) which denied her claim for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits following a 1990 injury sustained in the course of her employment as a bus driver for the School District of Escambia County, appellee. Because competent, substantial evidence supports the JCC's finding that the clerical work provided by the employer did not constitute "sheltered employment," we affirm.
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Liggon, 668 So.2d 259, 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), this court explained:
The sheltered employment doctrine does not have a life of its own. Rather, it merely serves to vindicate the legislatively imposed parameters of permanent and total disability. If an employer creates a job for an employee merely as a litigation tactic in a worker's compensation case, such a job cannot be said to constitute "gainful employment" as that term is used in section 440.15(l)(b), Florida Statutes. Reasonable job modifications for the purpose of accommodating an injured or partially disabled em ployee will not, however, place the job outside of the definition of gainful employment. (Citations omitted).
Thus, although a regular job may be considered sheltered employment "where . the claimant is permitted to regulate his own hours to accommodate his disability," Sugar Cane Growers Coop. v. McLean, 679 So.2d 856, 857 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), the finding of sheltered employment does not stand or fall on a showing that the claimant may regulate his or her working hours.
In the instant case, the record shows that claimant's treating physician recommended that she work part time to facilitate her recovery and increase her strength. Further, although the claimant's clerical job was part of the employer's "return-to-work" program instituted for injured workers, claimant was not the only participant in the program and she performed work which had been previously performed by other employees of the school system. Competent and substantial record evidence supports the conclusions that claimant's job duties were not created exclusively for her; the job was of independent value to the school system and was not created as a litigation tactic; and in this position, claimant was able to work six and one-half hours per day, which the record reflects is the equivalent of the full-time hours for a bus driver employed by the school system. The modifications the employer made in the claimant's job to accommodate her disability do not, as a matter of law, render it sheltered employment so as to place this job outside of "gainful employment" under section 440.15(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989). Liggon, 668 So.2d at 271.
Further, we do not read Shaw v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 609 So.2d 683 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), to require reversal here. In Shaiu, the judge of compensation claims denied permanent total disability benefits in part based on the claimant's ability to perform a light duty job in which the employer arranged a flexible work schedule, allowed frequent rest periods, and established no production quotas. Id. at 684,685. We reversed the order denying permanent total disability benefits "because the record lacks substantial evidence to support the denial of PTD benefits.... " Id. at 684. The reversal was based in substantial part upon the panel's conclusion that "the record leads to the inescapable conclusion" that the claimant's light duty job was sheltered employment. Id. at 685-686.
As explained in Liggon, "[t]he determination that a particular job is sheltered employment is . a largely factual issue." Liggon, 668 So.2d at 271. Although, in the instant case, there was conflicting evidence presented relating to the sheltered employment issue, unlike the panel in Shaw, here we find competent, substantial evidence to support the JCC's findings.
AFFIRMED.
PADOVANO, J., CONCURS.
BENTON, J., DISSENTS WITH WRITTEN OPINION.
. The instant order was entered on remand from an earlier appeal to this court. See School District of Escambia County v. Cooper, 686 So.2d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).