ACTIVE ENTERPRISES ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
GORDON W. CAVNAR, 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 denied the motion to extend jurisdictional relinquishment, but clarified that the deputy commissioner retains jurisdiction over issues not on appeal.
Appellee filed a motion to relinquish jurisdiction for a change of doctors, which was granted for 30 days. Appellee then moved to extend this period, …
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 Jurisdiction Of Deputy Commissioner cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On August 18, 1980, appellee filed a motion asking this court to relinquish jurisdiction to the Deputy Commissioner to determine whether a change of doctors should be authorized. On August 21, we relinquished jurisdiction for thirty days for the sole purpose of having a determination made on the change of doctors. On September 20, jurisdiction revested in this court.
On October 3, 1980, appellee filed a motion requesting that we extend the time of jurisdictional relinquishment through October 15, 1980, because “. . . The hearing could not be held until October 1, 1980.”
Since the briefs have been filed and the cause is ready for disposition, we deny the current motion. However, our retention of jurisdiction over this appeal does not divest the deputy of jurisdiction to determine the issue sought to be raised before him.
The Deputy Commissioner has jurisdiction to consider issues that are not related to the issues pending on appeal. The filing of the notice of appeal vests jurisdiction in this court “. . . to the extent of the issues raised.” Rule 21(a) Fla.W.C.R.P. During the pendency of the appeal, the deputy retains jurisdiction “.. . to enter orders on all matters of the claim which have not been appealed.” Rule 20(b)(3), Fla.W.C.R.P. In the instant case, the only issue on appeal is whether the attorney’s fee awarded is excessive. The motion to relinquish jurisdiction indicates that the only issue sought to be raised before the deputy is whether a change of doctors is warranted. Therefore, our jurisdiction over this appeal does not preclude the deputy from assuming jurisdiction to determine the latter issue.
WENTWORTH and JOANOS, JJ., and WOODIE A. LILES (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aguiar v. Doral Hotel & Country Club & Prof'l Administrators, 599 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…curs in result only. . Matured issues that are the subject of an appeal divest the judge of jurisdiction over them. See Sanz v. Eden Roc Hotel, 140 So. 2d 104 (Fla.1962), cert. dismissed, 165 So. 2d 179 (Fla.1964). And see Active Enters, v. Cavnar, 389 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (appeal regarding whether an attorney fee award was excessive did not preclude a JCC from assuming jurisdiction to determine whether a change of doctors on behalf of a claimant was warranted). . Rule 4.161 provides in pertinent…