ACOSTA ROOFING COMPANY AND LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
GUSSIE GILLYARD, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed workers' compensation award of temporary total disability benefits, treating a clerical error in the maximum medical improvement date as inconsequential and awarding attorney's fees to discourage frivolous appeals.
A clerical error in the date of maximum medical improvement that was not timely corrected is treated as inconsequential and does not warrant reversal of a temporary total disability award.
[1] Clerical errors in workers' compensation orders that could have been corrected during the statutory 20-day period before finality are treated as inconsequential when the…
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 employee suffered an industrial accident on October 2, 1979. The deputy awarded temporary total disability benefits through April 15, 1980, the dec…
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 Finality Of Administrative Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Chief Judge.
The only colorable issue raised by the employer/carrier’s appeal in this workers’ compensation case is whether we should reverse the deputy’s award of temporary total disability benefits during the period between the date of the industrial accident, October 2, 1979, and April 15, 1980, the declared date of maximum medical improvement. The deputy is said to have erred in fixing the latter date by inadvertently inserting in his order the date of the treating physician’s written medical report, rather than the date of the last medical examination to which the report related, namely, February 29, 1980. This error might readily have been corrected by application to the deputy during the 20 day period before it became final. Section 440.-25(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1979). Claimant concedes the error now and we will not suppose he would have resisted its correction at that earlier, more appropriate time. We therefore treat the error as inconsequential in order to discourage substantially groundless and unnecessary appeals to this court which serve to delay payment of benefits and unjustifiably tax the limited resources of the judicial system.
AFFIRMED. Appellee’s motion for attorney’s fee is GRANTED in the amount of $1,500.
JOANOS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (43 total)
-
Sunland Hospital/State OF Florida v. Garrett, 415 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…ctable technical error that the deputy was not asked to correct within the time available for correction. Section 440.25(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1981); Genuine Parts Co. v. Morris, 409 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Acosta Roofing Co. v. Gillyard, 402 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The purpose of workers’ compensation being to compensate the worker justly and in time for his disability due to industrial risks, this Court recently excised any incentive for the deputy to apply too-lenient work search standar…
-
Allman v. Meredith Corp. & Md. Cas. Co., 451 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…ctable technical error that the deputy was not asked to correct within the time available for correction. Section 440.25(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1981); Genuine Parts Co. v. Morris, 409 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Acosta Roofing Co. v. Gillyard, 402 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In Acosta Roofing Co. v. Gillyard, 402 So. 2d 1321, 1322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), pet. for rev. den., 412 So. 2d 463 (Fla.1982), this court also said: This error might readily have been corrected by application to the deputy durin…1 / 2
-
Dade Am. Hosp. Supply & Kemper Ins. v. Manuel Perez and the Division of Workers' Compensation, 417 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1979). However, this matter could easily have been brought to the deputy’s attention during the thirty-day period before the order became final. Section 440.25(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1981); Acosta Roofing Co. v. Gill-yard, 402 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). We will not reverse as to such a readily correctable error which was not substantially raised before the deputy. Sunland Hospital/State of Florida v. Garrett, 783 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) [1982 FLW 1222], Cross examination…
Previewing 3 of 43 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence