66 So. 3d 331
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- JCC found Employer knew or should have known Claimant was an illegal immigrant and employed him anyway until a significant workplace injury occurred.
- Claimant suffered severe injuries with permanent restrictions, including sedentary work limitations, and had no lawful work authorization, license, or transferable skills.
- E/C sought PTD benefits but argued Claimant’s illegal status barred recovery; JCC applied Candelo to preclude using illegal status defensively.
- Court affirmed PTD award based on combined effect of physical injuries and vocational impediments, including illegal status, with permanent disability.
- JCC denied PTD beyond merit hearing; cross-appeal argued for continuing PTD; court reversed on continuing benefits and remanded.
- Statutory framework supports PTD if claimant cannot engage in at least sedentary work within fifty miles due to physical and vocational factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Candelo preclude using illegal status as a defense to PTD? | Claimant argues E/C cannot use illegal status to deny compensation because Candelo precludes defense by knowingly employing illegal workers. | Employer contends illegal status is a defense to PTD and the JCC misapplied Candelo. | Yes; Candelo precludes using illegal status as a defensive shield. |
| Does the combined effect of injuries and vocational impediments prove PTD? | Claimant asserts injuries plus vocational impediments yield permanent total disability under the statute. | Employer argues physical capability for sedentary work and lack of employability due to status is dispositive. | Claimant satisfied a PTD alternative by the combination of physical injuries and vocational impediments. |
| May a JCC award PTD benefits on a continuing basis after the merit hearing? | Claimant seeks continuing PTD benefits post-merit hearing. | Employer argues benefits should not continue beyond merit hearing. | Yes; a JCC may award continuing PTD benefits and the denial for post-merit periods was reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Candelo Development Corp. v. Candelo, 478 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (employer of illegal workers cannot use status to avoid liability for disability benefits)
- Safeharbor Employer Servs., Inc. v. Velazquez, 860 So.2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (legality of aliens’ workers and compensation coverage under statute)
- Gore v. Lee County School Bd., 43 So.3d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (workers’ comp. aims to allocate costs to industry and avoid burden on society)
- Garcia v. Fence Masters, Inc., 16 So.3d 200 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (PTD requires determination of reasonably obtainable sedentary work within fifty miles)
- Temples v. WDW Hospitality & Recreation Corp., 993 So.2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (support for continuing PTD under certain conditions)
- Myers v. Hillsborough School Board, 982 So.2d 735 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (separate sequential PTD claims without res judicata under certain facts)