WASHINGTON SQUARE ASSOCIATES, LTD., ET AL., APPELLANT,
v.
HONEY BOURNE, 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.
Washington Square Associates appealed a workers' compensation order finding the claimant sustained a compensable injury and was entitled to reimbursement for medical expenses paid from personal funds. The appellate court affirmed the compensability finding and medical reimbursement but reversed and remanded the deputy's improper retention of jurisdiction over additional benefits that should have been adjudicated in the initial order.
The claimant is entitled to reimbursement for medical benefits paid from her own personal funds. The deputy erred by retaining jurisdiction over additional permanent partial physical impairment, temporary total disability benefits, and other benefits under the Act when these issues were properly presented and ripe for adjudication. The order lacked an adequate decretal clause and failed to fully adjudicate the parties' rights and responsibilities.
[1] A workers' compensation order is deficient and must be remanded if it does not adequately adjudicate the rights and responsibilities of the parties.
[2] A deputy commissioner errs by retaining jurisdiction over issues that were properly presented and ripe for adjudication.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The order requires reimbursement only for those medical benefits which claimant has "paid . . . out of her own personal funds. . .."”
Establishes the scope of the medical reimbursement entitlement awarded to the claimant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant sustained a work-related automobile injury and, unaware of her workers' compensation entitlement, personally obtained and paid for medical tr…
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 Permanent Impairment cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Employer/carrier appeal a workers’ compensation order by which claimant was found to have sustained a compensable injury, with entitlement to various workers’ compensation benefits. Jurisdiction was retained as to “additional benefits.” The parties agree that the appropriate compensation rate should be $125.40, and the order is hereby amended in this regard. The order is reversed and remanded as to the retention of jurisdiction for “additional benefits,” and, as amended, is otherwise affirmed.
Claimant sustained injury in a work-related automobile accident and, unaware of her possible entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits, personally obtained and paid for medical treatment. Employer/carrier contend that claimant is not entitled to reimbursement, by way of workers’ compensation benefits, for any medical payments covered by P.I.P. insurance. However, employer/carrier expressly waived an individualized accounting as to the various medical bills, and stipulated that medical was accepted if the injury were found to be compensable. The order requires reimbursement only for those medical benefits which claimant has “paid .. . out of her own personal funds. . .. ”
After finding that claimant had sustained a compensable injury, the deputy expressly found that claimant had attained maximum medical improvement, with a residual permanent impairment. However, the deputy has not mandated any responsibility of the parties in this regard and has retained jurisdiction to determine “any additional permanent partial physical impairment, temporary total disability benefits, or any other benefits under the Act.... ” These issues were properly presented and ripe for adjudication, and the deputy erred by retaining jurisdiction and failing to dispose of these issues. Dunn Lumber & Supply Co. v. Roy, 382 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The deputy has also failed to include a decretal clause in his order, and has not otherwise settled the rights or responsibilities of the parties other than to indicate that claimant should be reimbursed for medical payments made from her personal funds, and that employer/carrier’s advance payments are to “be on compensation.” Insofar as the order does not adequately adjudicate the rights and responsibilities of the parties, it is deficient and must be remanded. Central Oil Co. v. Campen, 390 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
While we find that employer/carrier has shown error requiring reversal in part and remand of the order appealed, we note that such error might more readily have been corrected by application to the deputy before the order was appealed. See generally, Acosta Roofing Co. v. Gillyard, 402 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Accordingly, the order, as amended, is affirmed in part, reversed as to the deputy’s retention of jurisdiction as to additional benefits, and remanded for further proceedings.
ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Betancourt v. Sears Roebuck & Co. & Kemper Ins. Co., 693 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…dictional question is instead controlled by such cases as Dunn Lumber & Supply Co. v. Roy, 382 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Estech General Chemicals Corp. v. Graham, 424 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Washington Square Associates, Ltd. v. Bourne, 408 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); and Thomas v. T & T Trucking, 382 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). These cases stand for the proposition that when a ripe claim is presented, and the JCC fails to rule on it, the proper resolution is to reverse and remand the cas…
-
Allman v. Meredith Corp. & Md. Cas. Co., 451 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…parties state or indicate, that claimant’s loss of wage earning capacity was to be adjudicated. Although we recognize that issues “properly presented and ripe for adjudication” should be adjudicated, see Washington Square Associates, Ltd. v. Bourne, 408 So. 2d 809, 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (emphasis added), it is also well established that notice must be given as to the issues in dispute to adequately apprise the deputy and the respective parties of the issues the deputy is to hear and determine. See, e.g., Un…
-
Kaplan Indus., Inc. v. Rowlett, 565 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…here is no indication that the judge intended an implicit denial of these claims. Since the issues were properly claimed and ripe for disposition the absence of an adjudication as to these issues is error. See generally, Washington Square v. Bourne, 408 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). It is thus necessary that the cause be remanded for a ruling as to these matters. The challenged order also assesses a penalty, but contains no factual findings or conclusions to support the penalty award. It was improper to a…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Acosta Roofing Co. & Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Gussie Gillyard, 402 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Cent. OIL Co. & Peninsular Fire Ins. Co. v. Campen, 390 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Dunn Lumber & Supply Co. & Iowa Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. v. ROY, 382 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)