Case Name: Raul ROJAS, Appellant, v. UNITED SHEET METAL and Associated Industries Insurance Company, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2002-11-14
Citations: 832 So. 2d 174
Docket Number: No. 1D01-4561
Parties: Raul ROJAS, Appellant, v. UNITED SHEET METAL and Associated Industries Insurance Company, Appellees.
Judges: VAN NORTWICK and POLSTON, JJ., concur; WOLF, J., dissents with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 832
Pages: 174–176

Head Matter:
Raul ROJAS, Appellant, v. UNITED SHEET METAL and Associated Industries Insurance Company, Appellees.
No. 1D01-4561.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Nov. 14, 2002.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 17, 2002.
Ivan Morales, Esquire, Hialeah, and Bill McCabe, Esquire, Longwood, for Appellant.
Mary Ann Stiles, Esquire and Rayford H. Taylor, Esquire, Stiles, Taylor & Grace, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant ("claimant") challenges the denial of his claim for temporary partial benefits by the Judge of Compensation Claims ("JCC"). The employer and carrier (E/C) paid claimant temporary disability benefits from the date of his injury, July 7, 1998, to the date he reached maximum medical improvement ("MMI") for his physical conditions, April 8, 1999. See § 440.15(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998). After claimant reached physical MMI, E/C paid him permanent impairment benefits. See § 440.15(3), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998). While E/C was paying permanent impairment benefits, claimant was referred to a psychiatrist and filed an additional claim for temporary disability benefits from April 8, 1999 through May 7, 2000, the stipulated date of his psychiatric MMI. The JCC denied the claim, stating: Claimant argues that we should reverse, citing Korody v. Quality Steel and Claims Center, 694 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). We agree.
In light of the fact that Claimant was placed at physical MMI as of April 8, 1999, and Dr. Miller's [the psychiatrist] uncontroverted testimony that Claimant did not have any psychiatric work restrictions, Claimant's request for temporary partial benefits must be denied. In the undersigned's view, a contrary ruling is not required simply because Dr. Miller did not place him at psychiatric MMI where Claimant had no psychiatric work restrictions, and was already at physical MMI and released to work with certain physical restrictions.
The court, in Korody, reversed the JCC's award of wage loss benefits before the claimant achieved overall MMI, "notwithstanding the lack of restrictions imposed as a result of claimant's psychiatric condition." 694 So.2d at 41. The court ruled:
"[Wjhere a claimant has both orthopedic and psychiatric injuries, permanent disability benefits cannot be awarded prior to the claimant's reaching MMI from both disorders." Entenmann's Bakery v. Smith, 620 So.2d 1049, 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(emphasis in original). The fact that the claimant's work restrictions all stem from his physical injuries rather than his psychiatric condition is not relevant to this issue.
694 So.2d at 41-42 (emphasis added). Because the JCC denied the claim solely on the basis that there were no work restrictions from his psychiatric condition, as in Korody, we reverse.
Because the JCC did not reach the issue of whether there is a causal connection between a work-related injury and a resulting wage loss from April 8, 1999 through May 7, 2000, see Vencor Hospital v. Ahles, 727 So.2d 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), we do not reach that issue.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
VAN NORTWICK and POLSTON, JJ., concur; WOLF, J., dissents with opinion.
. We are not persuaded by E/C's argument that Korody was overruled by the 1994 legislative changes in the workers compensation statutes.