CAROLYN DAILEY, APPELLANT,
v.
GENERAL ACCOUNTING MACHINES, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the claimant challenged an order awarding certain benefits while denying "all other claims," arguing the deputy erred by adjudicating the issue of permanent disability. The court affirmed, holding that the issue of permanent disability was mature for adjudication and the claimant could not rely on pre-trial restrictions after initiating questioning about it.
The court held that the deputy did not err by ruling on permanent disability. Once the claimant initiated questioning about permanent disability and the condition was found to be mature for adjudication (having reached maximum medical improvement), the claimant could not rely on pre-trial restrictions to prevent the deputy's ruling on this issue.
[1] A workers' compensation order denying "all other claims" is construed as a denial of claims that were mature and ripe for adjudication and placed in issue.
[2] A deputy workers' compensation commissioner should not rule on issues beyond the agreed scope of a hearing, unless the issue is otherwise mature for adjudication and evid…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A deputy should not, of course, rule on issues which are beyond the agreed scope of a hearing.”
Establishes the general rule that deputies are limited to agreed-upon issues
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant appealed a workers' compensation order. Permanent disability was not expressly placed in issue by the formal claim or pre-trial stipulati…
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 Pretrial Stipulation cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Claimant appeals a workers’ compensation order which awarded various benefits and denied “all other claims.” Construing this language as a denial of such claims as were mature and ripe for adjudication and placed in issue, we affirm the order appealed.
Claimant argues, among other contentions, that the deputy erred by adjudicating the issue of permanent disability. The dep uty found that claimant has sustained no permanent disability, and effectively adju-dieated the issue by awarding some benefits and denying “all other claims.”
A deputy should not, of course, rule on issues which are beyond the agreed scope of a hearing. See Pompano Roofing Co. v. O’Neal, 410 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA). In this case permanent disability was not expressly placed in issue by either the formal claim or the pre-trial stipulation, but the record does not show any express reservation of the issue or other fact bearing on estoppel against its submission. We conclude that in these circumstances a claimant may not rely on the pre-trial restrictions after initiating questioning of various physicians on this point. Further, the order found that claimant attained maximum medical improvement nearly a year prior to the date of the hearing. The issue of permanent disability was in this case clearly mature for adjudication, and the deputy did not err by ruling on the evidence put before him. Cf., Action Pool Builders v. Grant, IRC Order 2-3743 (March 23, 1979); see generally, Hunt v. International Minerals and Chemical Corp., 410 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Rights of the parties to isolate matters for hearing (and to preserve other issues for self-executing procedures) plainly must be exercised with respect for orderly disposition of matured claims at the time of entry of a final order. The order appealed is hereby affirmed.
MILLS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Power Corp. v. Hamilton, 617 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…g. Leeds Shoes; see also Allman v. Meredith Corp., 451 So. 2d 957, 959 n. 1, (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Although a matter may be placed at issue by the presentation of evidence specifically directed to the dispute, see Dailey v. General Accounting Machs., 411 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the evidence in the present case was not such as to necessarily expand the scope of the hearing. Due process concerns preclude a ruling on matters which have not been placed at issue, as the parties are entitled to notice so th…
-
Santiesteban v. Okeelanta Corp & Alexsis, Inc., 688 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…lant was on notice that his doctors had placed him at maximum medical improvement, the JCC did not err in adjudi- [*2] eating the wage loss claims. Turner v. Rinker Materials, 622 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Dailey v. General Accounting Machines, 411 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Also the JCC properly followed Winn Dixie v. Resnikoff, 659 So. 2d. 1297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) in which this court recognized that “the eligibility schedule [for wage loss] under section 440.15(3)(b)4.d. applies only as a cumulati…
Authorities Cited
- Hunt v. Int'l Minerals & Chem. Corp., 410 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Pompano Roofing Co., Inc. v. O'Neal, 410 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)