THE WASH HOUSE AND SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
LINDA F. TUCKER, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 held that an order finding permanent impairment without awarding benefits is not a final order and thus not directly appealable. The cross-appeal regarding temporary disability benefits was affirmed.
Appellants sought review of an order finding a 5% permanent impairment. The order did not award benefits, and appellants argued the impairment rating …
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 Rating cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants seek review of an order finding the claimant/appellee, Linda F. Tucker, to have sustained a 5% permanent impairment as a result of her industrial accident, which occurred on April 17, 1980. Appellants claim that there is no evidence to suggest that her impairment rating is based upon the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, as required by Section 440.15(3), Florida Statutes (1979). However, we decline to reach this issue.
Although the deputy commissioner did make a finding that the claimant had sustained a 5% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole, his order does not reflect an award of workers’ compensation benefits. Therefore, the order is not a final order. The applicable procedural rules, Rules 9.030(b)(1)(B) and 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, do not authorize direct review by this court of non-final orders of a deputy commissioner. See United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Sloan, 410 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1982). Consequently, we dismiss the employer/carrier’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because it attempts to appeal a nonap-pealable interlocutory order. Appellee’s timely cross-appeal as to the propriety of an award of temporary disability benefits after June 1, 1980, is cognizable by this court as a final order denying the claim for these benefits. Because there is substantial competent evidence to support the deputy commissioner’s determinations in this matter, we decline to reweigh the evidence. Croft v. Pinkerton-Hayes Lumber Co., 386 So. 2d 535, 537 (Fla.1980).
Accordingly, appellee’s cross-appeal is AFFIRMED, and appellants’ direct appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Our dismissal is without prejudice to review of the order in the event of appeal from a final order awarding permanent impairment or wage loss benefits pursuant to Section 440.15(3), Florida Statutes (1979).
ERVIN, SHIVERS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Fulmer-Orlando v. Taylor, 419 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…tates that the issue of wage loss was not presented and awards no permanent compensation benefits. The order on this point is therefore not subject to review in this appeal of the award of temporary disability compensation. The Wash House v. Tucker, 413 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Affirmed. BOOTH and WIGGINTON, JJ„ concur.…
-
Mills Elec. Contractors & Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Marthens, 417 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…030(b)(1)(B), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, limits the applicability of Rule 9.130 to orders of circuit courts, this court is without jurisdiction to review by appeal non-final workers’ [*701] compensation orders.1 The Wash House v. Tucker, 413 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1982); General Electric Company v. Hawkins, 413 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1982). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed sua sponte without prejudice to review of the order in the event of an appeal from a final order awarding benefits…
-
S. Wine & Spirits, Inc. v. Felipe Hernandez and the Division of Workers' Compensation, 442 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…peal. See Sheffield Steel Products v. Tripp, 433 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Mills Electrical Contractors v. Marthens, 417 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Town of Palm Beach v. Watts, 426 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); The Wash House v. Tucker, 413 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The appeal is sua sponte dismissed. Such dismissal shall not preclude subsequent review upon appeal from a final order. WENTWORTH, NIMMONS and ZEH-MER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Sloan, 410 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Croft v. Pinkerton-Hayes Lumber Co., 386 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1980)