Court Cases Court Cases
AL  AK  AZ  AR  CA  CO  CT  DE  FL  GA  HI  ID  IL  IN  IA  KS  KY  LA  ME  MD  MA  MI  MN  MS  MO  MT  NE  NV 
NH  NJ  NM  NY  NC  ND  OH  OK  OR  PA  RI  SC  SD  TN  TX  UT  VT  VA  WA  WV  WI  WY  EO  NR  PR  DC  US 
 
View Case Details
 
South Florida Prestressed and Poe Risk Management Services Inc. ,Appellants
vs.
Norris Pollock, Appellee
 
Case:
No. 87-938
 
Location:
Court of Appeals of Florida, First District
 
Date:
May 11, 1988
 
Attorneys:
Joan Fowler of Walton Lantaff Schroeder & Carson West Palm Beach for Appellants.
Bryant Scott Henry Lauderhill for Appellee.
 
Court:
Barfield J. Wentworth J. and Frank Richard H., Associate Judge concur.
 
Author:
The Hon. Justice Barfield
 

In this workers' compensation appeal the employer contests the award of wage loss benefits from August 1986 through May 1987 excluding December 1986. We affirm.

The employer contends that the deputy commissioner erred in rejecting its argument that under section 440.15(6) Florida Statutes (1983) the claimant is not entitled to compensation because he has voluntarily limited his income by refusing an offer of employment within his limitations. The employer offered the claimant a light duty job but required him to undergo a physical examination and consent to urinalysis drug testing at the time of the examination and on a random basis thereafter. *fn1

The claimant accepted the offer of employment and agreed to undergo the physical examination and urinalysis. However because he feared it would jeopardize his workers' compensation claim and on the advice of his Counsel the claimant refused to sign the consent form which contained a provision waiving "all claims charges or causes of action" against the employer or the testing technician "which may arise from this urinalysis test or any investigation relating to or arising out of such urinalysis testing."

The deputy commissioner found that the claimant had conducted a proper job search for each month during the claim period except December 1986 that he did not refuse to accept the position offered and did not refuse to submit to a physical examination and urinalysis and that his refusal to sign the consent form did not constitute an unreasonable refusal of employment under section 440.15(6). Competent substantial evidence supports these findings. The order is

AFFIRMED.

Barfield J. Wentworth J. and Frank Richard H. Associate Court concur.

 
Notes:

*fn1 The employer had adopted a new policy during the claimant's recovery from his accident requiring all new and rehired employees to undergo urinalysis drug testing at the start of their employment and requiring all employees to consent to random drug testing as a condition of continued employment.