SEWELL PLASTICS, INC., SELF INSURED, APPELLANT,
v.
HAZEL JACKSON, 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 First District Court of Appeal affirmed the deputy commissioner's findings that the injury was compensable under an exposure or repeated trauma theory, proper notice was given, there was a causal relationship to the industrial accident, and attorney's fees were awardable. However, the court struck the award of future medical care because the claim for such benefits was not properly noticed for hearing.
The court affirmed the deputy commissioner's findings regarding compensability, causal relationship, notice, and attorney's fees, finding them supported by competent substantial evidence with correct legal standards applied. However, the court struck the award of future medical care because no such claim had been properly noticed for hearing and was not among the issues announced by the deputy at the start of the hearing.
[1] An award of future medical care in a worker's compensation case is improper when no claim for such benefits was made in the initial claim for benefits, notice of hearing,…
[2] A claim for future remedial care must be properly noticed for resolution at a hearing.
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“the deputy erred because no claim for such benefits had been made either in the claim for benefits, the notice of hearing, or on the pre-trial stipulation sheet”
Establishes the requirement that claims for future medical benefits must be properly noticed to be decided at a hearing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHazel Jackson, a claimant, sustained an industrial injury that the deputy commissioner determined was compensable under the repeated trauma or exposur…
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 Notice Of Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
In this appeal from a worker’s compensation order appellant claims the deputy commissioner erred in determining that: the injury was compensable under the theory of exposure or repeated trauma; claimant gave her employer proper notice of the injury; there was a causal relationship between the industrial accident and the injury; attorneys fees were awardable; and employer should furnish claimant such medical care and attention as the nature of the injury and process of recovery may require.
The findings regarding compensability, causal relationship, notice, and attorneys fees are supported by competent substantial evidence, the correct legal standards having been applied, and we affirm as to them. As to the award of future medical care, however, the deputy erred because no claim for such benefits had been made either in the claim for benefits, the notice of hearing, or on the pre-trial stipulation sheet. At the start of the hearing, the deputy announced the issues which had been noticed for hearing; additional remedial care was not among them. See Austin Co. v. Lindenberger, 410 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Goodyear Service Store v. Rockey, 382 So. 2d 816, 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
Although upon questioning by her attorney, and over objection of counsel for E/C, claimant testified that her hand still hurt and she would like to return to Dr. Bourguignon, there had been no claim for future remedial care such that the issue was properly noticed for resolution at that hearing.
Therefore, the award of future remedial care is stricken from the order. Claimant’s motion for attorney’s fees for appellate services is granted. Appellant shall pay to claimant’s attorney a fee in the amount of $2,000.00, which we find to be a reasonable sum. Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (1979) contained no specific authorization for the award of appellate attorney’s fees at the time that the injury occurred.
However, this Court has previously determined that a fee is awardable pursuant to Section 59.46, Florida Statutes (1979) where an attorney’s fee was awarda-ble at the hearing level under Section 440.-34(2)(a)-(c), Florida Statutes (1979). Jones v. K & L Contractors, 392 So. 2d 375, 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Lehigh Corp. v. Byrd, 397 So. 2d 1202, 1204-5 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). That is the situation here.
The order is affirmed as modified.
LARRY G. SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vill. INN Rest. & Gallagher-Bassett Servs., Inc. v. Aridi, 543 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…al benefits, not in his claim, not in the pretrial stipulation, and not in the notice of hearing. Thus, the DC’s award of future medical benefits must be reversed as the issue was not properly placed in controversy. Sewell Plastics, Inc. v. Jackson, 418 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Central Oil Company v. Campen, 390 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). All involved parties must have notice of the issues to be disputed and determined. Allman v. Meredith Corp., 451 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We reject the c…
-
Prestressed Decking Corp. & Travelers Ins. Co. v. Edgardo Medrano, 556 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…cause the issue was not properly raised, the deputy erred in ruling on it. Village Inn Restaurant v. Aridi, 543 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA March 31, 1989); Allman v. Meredith Corp., 451 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Sewell Plastics, Inc. v. Jackson, 418 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).3 Regarding the sixth issue, the record reflects that there was a controversy about paying Dr. Latterner’s present bill and for her future services. Thus, they were the proper subject of an award. H. G. Boddiford Painting Contra…
-
Kaplan Indus., Inc. v. Rowlett, 565 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…fy the matters to be litigated, see Orin Cummings Construction Company v. Beckman, 395 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), or the prohibition against awarding benefits which are beyond the scope of the hearing. See e.g., Sewell Plastics Inc. v. Jackson, 418 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Diplomat Hotel v. Grimes, 379 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). It was error to award this unclaimed benefit, although the matter may be addressed on remand, or otherwise in the future, upon a proper claim. Impairment benefits…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lehigh Corp. & U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Byrd, 397 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- The Austin Co. & Gen. Accident Grp. v. Lindenberger, 410 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Goodyear Serv. Store & the Travelers Ins. Co. v. Rockey, 382 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Alphonso Jones v. K & L Contractors & Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford, 392 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)