work search requirement in Florida

1995Publix Supermarket, Inc. v. Hart, 609 So.2d 1342, 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). "[T]he mere excusal of the work search requirement is not sufficient to establish the causal relationship between the change in employment status and the compensable injury." Hart, 609 So.2d at 1345 , citing Edwards v. Caulfield, 560 So.2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

1995Publix Supermarket, Inc. v. Hart, 609 So.2d 1342, 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). "[T]he mere excusal of the work search requirement is not sufficient to establish the causal relationship between the change in employment status and the compensable injury." Hart, 609 So.2d at 1345 , citing Edwards v. Caulfield, 560 So.2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

1982However, we find no express or implied legislative intent to abolish the work search test, and we are thus guided by the rule that in the absence of a clear indication to the contrary, we must presume that the legislature has no intention to mandate the abandonment of the evidentiary test for employability which had become "enshrined" (as Professor Alpert concedes) in Florida compensation jurisprudence prior to 1979. ( See, Exxon Company, U.S.A. v. Alexis, 370 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 1978); City of Hollywood v. Castora, 380 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)).

1982Although the work search requirement in Exxon Co., U.S.A. v. Alexis, 370 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 1978), originally relating to assessment of permanent disability, has been for good reason applied to temporary disability by requiring good faith in testing work capability after medical release, the principle is plainly subject to qualification with respect to short periods or particular circumstances including but not limited to a claimant's testimony as to physical conditions and symptoms involving ordinary evidentiary credibility standards as opposed to indispensable medical expertise.

1995Turner v. Rinker Materials, 622 So.2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

1993“The legal effect of a failure to so inform is to relieve the claimant of the necessity of performing the work search, but this does not conclusively entitle the claimant to benefits.” Nickolls v. University of Florida, 606 So.2d 410, 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (citing Burger King v. Nicholas, 580 So.2d 656 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Coq v. Fuchs Baking Co., 507 So.2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)). [T]he mere excusal of the work search requirement is not sufficient to establish the causal relationship between the change in employment status and the compensable injury.

1992See Caldwell v. Halifax Convalescent Ctr., 566 So.2d 311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Conrad v. Engineering Int'l, Inc., 530 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); International Minerals & Chem.

1989Bill's Equipment and Rentals v. Teel, 498 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Alexandre v. Excel Handbags, Inc., 479 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); H.S.

1989Camp & Sons v. Flynn, 450 So.2d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (three years). [1] We have previously held, in the context of a claim for temporary total or permanent total disability benefits, that the work search requirement can be excused where the facts establish that it would be a futile gesture, even though the claimant is not technically precluded from engaging in some form of employment.

1989Hill v. Baptist Hospital, 464 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

1989Bill's Equipment and Rentals v. Teel, 498 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Alexandre v. Excel Handbags, Inc., 479 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); H.S.

1988Austen Construction *1018 Management Corporation v. Waters, 508 So.2d 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

1986Further support is provided for the deputy commissioner's award of TPD by the case of Tampa Electric Company v. Bradshaw, 477 So.2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

1986This argument is negated by Stahl v. Southeastern X-Ray, 447 So.2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), wherein the court held that for purposes of the work search rule, obtaining and performing a full-time job constitutes an adequate job search and market test.

1985Similarly, the facts stated in the opinion in D & R Builders, Inc. v. Quetglas, 449 So.2d 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), do not indicate any basis such as that present here for invoking the deemed earnings provision, other than the conceded voluntary limitation of income by inadequate search.

1985Pan Am Tobacco Corp. v. Brown, 416 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

1985Chicken-'N-Things v. Murray, 329 So.2d 302 (Fla. 1976); Sizemore v. Canaveral Port Authority, 332 So.2d 23 (Fla. 1976). [6] However the work search rule may be stated in a specific opinion, we must remain cognizant that "the mere articulation of some work search deficiency under the facts of a particular case does not convert that element into an essential evidentiary requirement... ." Regency, at p. 877, 878.

1985Earlier, in Holiday Care Center v. Scriven, 418 So.2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), this court alluded to the "centrality" of the work search requirement, and pointed out that as the injured worker progresses from inability to ability to work, the E/C's obligation to pay benefits continues, and "will be monitored by contact with the searching worker." Id. at 325 . [3] In the same case, we also noted that the E/C's affirmative obligations under Chapter 440, as interpreted in Florida Erection Services, supra, do not terminate upon the E/C's initial denial or termination of benefits, "nor when the mat

1985Earlier, in Holiday Care Center v. Scriven, 418 So.2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), this court alluded to the "centrality" of the work search requirement, and pointed out that as the injured worker progresses from inability to ability to work, the E/C's obligation to pay benefits continues, and "will be monitored by contact with the searching worker." Id. at 325 . [3] In the same case, we also noted that the E/C's affirmative obligations under Chapter 440, as interpreted in Florida Erection Services, supra, do not terminate upon the E/C's initial denial or termination of benefits, "nor when the mat

1985Chicken-'N-Things v. Murray, 329 So.2d 302 (Fla. 1976); Sizemore v. Canaveral Port Authority, 332 So.2d 23 (Fla. 1976). [6] However the work search rule may be stated in a specific opinion, we must remain cognizant that "the mere articulation of some work search deficiency under the facts of a particular case does not convert that element into an essential evidentiary requirement... ." Regency, at p. 877, 878.

1982Moretti, Inc., 120 So.2d 443 (Fla. 1960); and 32 Fla.Jur.2d, Judgments And Decrees, § 99. [9] See, 32 Fla.Jur.2d, Judgments And Decrees, § 97, and cases cited therein, notes 19, 20, 21. [10] By rough count, for the years 1980 and 1981, and 1982 to date, there were some 44 written opinions touching on some aspect of the work search requirement.