SPARTON ELECTRONICS AND CNA INSURANCE GROUP, APPELLANTS,
v.
BRENDA HEATH, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1982-06-02
No. AG-199
McCORD, J., and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
414 So. 2d 642 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1982) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that while wage loss benefits and costs were properly awarded, the award of temporary total disability benefits must be reversed due to insufficient notice.

Facts & Procedural History

An employer/carrier appealed a compensation order awarding temporary total disability (TTD) benefits, wage loss benefits, and costs to a claimant. The…

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.

Topics
Claim For Temporary Total Disability Benefits Claim For Wage Loss Benefits Notice Of Claim Wage Loss Benefits

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Claim For Temporary Total Disability Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
MILLS, Judge.

MILLS, Judge.

The employer/carrier (E/C) appeal a compensation order finding the claimant entitled to temporary total disability (TTD) benefits through the date of maximum medical improvement, wage loss benefits thereafter, and costs. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support a finding of wage loss. Since wage loss benefits were properly obtained, costs were assessable against the E/C. Section 440.34(2), Florida Statutes (1979).

The E/C contend that insufficient notice of the claim for TTD was given. We agree and reverse the award of TTD benefits. The claimant filed a “shotgun” claim identifying TTD as one of the benefits sought. This, however, does not give the E/C notice that TTD will be litigated at some specific hearing. The notice of hearing and application for hearing must provide this, Orin Cummings Construction Co. v. Beckman, 395 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Unfortunately, neither of these items is in the record on appeal. Nonetheless, the claimant does not dispute that neither of these identifies TTD as an issue for the hearing. Since such notice is required, the award of TTD was error. McCORD, J., and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • City OF Gainesville & Crawford & Co. v. Helton, 458 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
    …edical and pharmaceutical expenses resulting from claimant’s compensable injury since notice of those expenses as an issue at the hearing was neither provided in the application for hearing nor in the notice of hearing. Sparton Electronics v. Heath, 414 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). [*1197] Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. BOOTH, SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.…
  • City OF Alachua & U.S.F. & G. Co. v. Parrish, 481 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
    …benefits because the application for hearing, notice of hearing, and pretrial stipulation sheet failed to provide notice to the employer and carrier that these benefits were being claimed. Rule 4.080(a), Fla. W.C.R.P.; Sparton Electronics v. Heath, 414 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We [*49] also reverse the award of penalties because the carrier timely filed a notice to controvert. Since the order is otherwise devoid of any findings of fact supporting an award of penalties, we remand for further considerat…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw