Cases

A JCC's determination as to whether a claimant is entitled to an advance is reviewed for abuse of discretion.  To the extent that statutory construction is necessary, this appellate court's review is de novo. 

JCC denied $2,000 advance pursuant to Section 440.20(12)(c),2, Florida Statutes.  To qualify for an advance under this section, the claimant is required to show one of the following: 1) a failure to return to employment at no substantial wage reduction; 2) a substantial loss of earning capacity; or 3) an actual or apparent physical impairment.  The claimant is also required to show that there was adequate justification for her request which means that the advance has some plausible nexus to the principal purpose of Chapter 440 which is to address medical and related financial needs arising from workplace injuries. 

Court determined that JCC erred in failing to grant the advance.  At the time of the advance, the claimant was on unpaid leave and received no income for a period of at least one month.  The basis for the advancement was to pay unpaid bills.  The JCC found that there was no nexus between the claimant's need for an advance and the workplace injury since the claimant was already behind in the payment of her bills when the request for an advance was made. Even though this was the case, the claimant still missed one week of wages which established the nexus requirement.  Even after her return to work, she continued to experience a loss in wages.  Because the claimant's indebtedness would only grow worse due to her loss of wages, the requisite nexus existed between the need for an advance and the workplace injury.