Home Depot v. Turner, 820 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
Home Depot v. Turner, 820 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Elder v. West Boca Medical Center (fladistctapp, 2005-06-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Elder v. West Boca Medical Center
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
In no other case may permanent total disability be awarded.”); Home Depot, 820 So.2d at 1075-76 (holding the E/C bears the burden, not the claimant, “to demonstrate, by the conclusive proof required statutorily, that claimant maintained a substantial earning capacity despite her impairment”).
cited Cited "see" Houck v. LEE COUNTY BD. OF COUNTY COM'RS
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Home Depot v. Turner, 820 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
cited Cited "see" G. PIERCE WOOD MEMORIAL HOSP. v. Griffis
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Home Depot v. Turner, 820 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Teresita De Jesus Abreu v. Riverland Elementary School and Broward County etc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
Cortina v. State, Dep’t of HRS, 901 So. 2d 273, 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (holding section 440.13(5)(e)’s limit on admissible medical witnesses to authorized treating IME or EMA does not violate separation of powers because “this court has consistently recognized and upheld the Legislature’s prerogative as to evidentiary issues in workers’ compensation cases”); see also Home Depot v. Turner, 820 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (upholding statute setting forth burdens of proof for claimant to satisfy in seeking entitlement to permanent total disability benefits); Rucker v. City of Oca…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Advanced Masonry Systems v. Molina
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
See § 440.15(l)(b), Fla. Stat.; see also Home Depot v. Turner, 820 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Thompson
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
From January 1, 1994, until October 1, 2003, the effective date of chapter 2003-412, section 18, Laws of Florida, a claimant seeking PTD was bound to demonstrate "a catastrophic injury as defined in s. 440.02." § 440.15(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995); see ch. 2003-412, § 18, at 3917, Laws of Fla. Under the definition section referenced by the catastrophic injury requirement, claimant had to prove industrial causation and that the injury complained of was "of a nature and severity that would qualify an employee to receive disability income benefits under Title II . . . of the federal Social Securit…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cortina v. STATE, DEPT. OF HRS
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Home Depot v. Turner, 820 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (approving the statute's requirement for "conclusive proof of a substantial earning capacity" as the claimant's burden of proving entitlement to permanent total disability benefits).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
HOME DEPOT and Sedgwick CMS, Appellants,
v.
Lucy TURNER, Appellee.
1D01-3413.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Jul 16, 2002.
820 So. 2d 1075
Kahn.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

Gerald F. Znosko and Sean H. McBride of Langston, Hess, Bolton, Znosko, Helm & Allen, P.A., Maitland, for Appellants.

Barry Silber of Barry Silber, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellee.

KAHN, J.

In this workers' compensation case, the employer and carrier (E/C) challenge the award below both of permanent total disability (PTD) benefits and of an authorized primary care physician for appellee's benefit. We affirm and address briefly the issue concerning PTD.

The parties agree that the standard for PTD is that set out in section 440.15(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1995):

Only a catastrophic injury as defined in s. 440.02 shall, in the absence of conclusive proof of a substantial earning capacity, constitute permanent total disability. Only claimants with catastrophic injuries are eligible for permanent total disability benefits. In no other case may a permanent total disability be awarded.

Claimant proved the catastrophic injury requirement to the satisfaction of the JCC by adducing evidence that claimant's impairment was related to her industrial accident and moreover that the injury was "of a nature and severity that would qualify an employee to receive disability income benefits under Title II ... of the federal Social Security Act ...." § 440.02(34)(f), Fla. Stat. (1995).

The E/C do not seriously challenge the JCC's finding that claimant suffered a catastrophic injury, as required by the Workers' Compensation Act. Nevertheless, the E/C argue, with reference to section 440.15(1)(b), that claimant has not met her burden of proving entitlement to PTD benefits because she has not demonstrated, in the language of the statute, "absence of conclusive proof of a substantial earning capacity."

The E/C's argument is based upon an incorrect assumption concerning the burden of proof. As claimant points out, the language of section 440.15(1)(b), "in the absence of conclusive proof of a substantial earning capacity," was intended by the Legislature to create an affirmative defense to the E/C's liability for PTD. See Bob Wilson Dodge v. Mohammed, 692[*1076] So.2d 287, 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The E/C had the burden to demonstrate, by the conclusive proof required statutorily, that claimant maintained a substantial earning capacity despite her impairment. The E/C failed to come forward with such proof and, accordingly, the JCC correctly awarded the benefits sought.

AFFIRMED.

WEBSTER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.