City of Miami v. Summers
City of Miami v. Summers
Opinion of the Court
In this worker’s compensation case the employer/carrier challenge the deputy commissioner’s findings, arguing that they are not based on competent substantial evidence. We agree in part and reverse in part.
The deputy commissioner’s finding that claimant suffered a compensable industrial
In all other respects the deputy commissioner’s order is affirmed. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
. The claimant testified that following his discharge he sought “light work.” It is clear, however, that for a number of years prior to his industrial accident, for reasons unrelated to the accident, he had been performing “light duty” for the employer. There is no indication in the record that the restrictions on his job search were caused by the accident.
. In fact, no medical evidence was introduced relating to the period of time between August 14, 1980, and the date of the final hearing, October 15, 1981.
.Cf. Holiday Care Center v. Scriven, 418 So.2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), 7 FLW 1644 (opinion filed August 2, 1982), which allowed recovery (under Section 440.15(4), temporary partial disability) for temporary wage loss suffered by an employee after termination of temporary total disability, upon being medically discharged as able to work, during the period in which she was still recovering from her injury and conscientiously but unsuccessfully seeking employment.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.