SUNLAND DEVELOPMENT CENTER AT FORT MYERS, APPELLANT,
v.
AGNES C. EUANS, 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.
An employer/carrier's appeal of an interlocutory workers' compensation order appointing a physician for routine examination is dismissed because the order addresses only incidental aspects of the claim, not an essential element, and is therefore not reviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3) absent a final order on the claim.
An order appointing a physician for routine examination in a workers' compensation case is interlocutory and not reviewable under Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3) unless appealed in connection with a final order disposing of the claim.
[1] An order appointing a physician for routine examination in a workers' compensation case disposes of incidental aspects rather than an essential element and is therefore i…
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 a workers' compensation order appointing a physician to conduct a routine examination and evaluation of the claimant.…
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 Interlocutory Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Employer/carrier appeals a workers’ compensation order appointing a physician for a routine examination and evaluation of the claimant under circumstances indicating that is not the sole point in controversy between the parties. We conclude that such an order disposes of incidental aspects rather than an “essential element” of the claim. See Patrylo v. Nautilus Hotel, 142 So. 2d 279 (Fla.1962). The order appealed is therefore interlocutory in nature under standards previously applicable. Dade County School Board v. Hill, IRC Order 2-3414 (April 26, 1978), cert. dismissed, 366 So. 2d 880 (Fla.1978); Peters v. General Telephone Co., IRC Order 2-3153 (May 16, 1977); Lehman v. Goodwin, 7 FCR 55 (1972).
Appeals from interlocutory orders in workers’ compensation cases are governed by the provisions of Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3). Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Scott, 386 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Rule 9.130(a)(3) contains no provision which would authorize review of the order appealed in the present case; the order is thus not reviewable except in connection with an appeal from a final order disposing of the claim.
The appeal is dismissed without prejudice to appellant’s right to raise the issue upon review of a final order. ERVIN and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lake Wales Citrus Growers Ass'n & Self-Insured Servs., Inc. v. Green, 403 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…since it is an appeal from an interim order which is not reviewable by interlocutory appeal. Rule 9.130(a)(3), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, does not provide for appeal of such an order. See Sunland Development Center at Fort Myers v. Euans, 392 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York v. Scott, 386 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). MILLS, ERVIN and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Patrylo v. Nautilus Hotel & Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 142 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1962)
- Cavanaugh v. State, 386 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)