CITY OF HIALEAH, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD A. HILYARD, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed the industrial claims judge's order regarding future benefits not in controversy, but affirmed penalties and attorney's fees for untimely wage payments under Florida Statutes § 440.20(5).
A judge of industrial claims errs by ruling on future compensation and medical benefits when the employer/carrier does not oppose payment of those benefits.
[1] A judge of industrial claims should not enter orders on matters not in controversy when the employer/carrier does not oppose payment of the requested benefits.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn employer/carrier appealed an industrial claims judge's order requiring payment of future temporary total disability benefits, medical treatment, an…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Penalties For Late Payment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The employer/carrier seeks review of the order of the judge of industrial claims con tending that the judge erred 1) in ordering the appellant to pay future temporary total disability benefits, to provide future medical treatment and to reimburse prescription and transportation costs when these were not in issue and 2) in finding that appellee was not timely paid his compensation benefits when the appellant was paying him full wages, and in awarding penalties and an attorney’s fee.
Appellant is correct in his contention that the judge of industrial claims should not have entered an order on the question of future compensation, medical benefits and the drug and transportation costs. Since the employer/carrier was not opposing payment of these benefits the judge of industrial claims ruled on a matter not in controversy. This was error. School Board of Pinellas County v. Mauri, IRC Order 2-3330 (1978). That portion of his order is reversed.
We find no merit in appellant’s second point. The record contains competent substantial evidence to support the judge’s finding that the payments were not timely and Section 440.20(5) Florida Statutes (1977) provides for the assessment of penalties in such circumstances. The portion of the order assessing these penalties and awarding attorney’s fees is affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.
MILLS, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur. BOOTH, J., dissents with an opinion.
BOOTH, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent from this court’s retention of jurisdiction in this case, which arose outside the territorial jurisdictional of the court. See Crews v. Town of Bay Harbor, 378 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
On the merits, I would concur in the majority’s opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Evans Packing Co. v. Campbell, 397 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…ent and total disability benefits or permanent partial disability benefits in excess of those assigned by the doctor and accepted by the carrier. There was no request for future medical care. The carrier correctly cites City of Hialeah v. Hilyard, 379 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) for the proposition that it is error for a Deputy Commissioner to rule on issues not in controversy. Paragraph 2 of the decretal portion of the order is stricken, The order is otherwise affirmed. MILLS, C. J., and SHAW and JOAN…
-
Lawton v. Fla. Steel Corp. & Hartford Ins. Co., 403 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…limited to the issues set forth above. Because of this action Lawton was deprived of due process, the right to submit evidence on her permanent partial disability. Diplomat v. Grimes, 379 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); City of Hialeah v. Hilyard, 379 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Farm Stores v. Dyrda, 384 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). [*629] Reversed and remanded for appropriate action consistent with this opinion. MILLS, ERVIN, and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Emerson Crews v. Town OF BAY Harbor Islands & Metro. Dade Cnty. Self Ins. Fund, 378 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)