STARDUST MOTEL AND CASUALTY RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE, APPELLANTS,
v.
ANNE P. ST. CLAIRE, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Medical Treatment cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
The employer/carrier appeals the deputy commissioner’s (DC) order awarding temporary total disability (TTD), attorney’s fees assessment, medical treatment and “appropriate penalties.” We affirm the order to the extent it awards TTD, attorney’s fees and medical treatment, but reverse the award of “appropriate penalties” and remand for clarification.
The DC erred in ordering the payment of “appropriate penalties” without making findings of fact as to why or which penalty was imposed. The imposition of the proper penalty should not be left to inference, but should be set forth in a finding by the DC that states the ultimate facts and conclusions supporting the imposition of the penalty. The DC has the same obligation to state the ultimate facts and conclusions supporting the imposition of a penalty as he has in regard to any other award of benefits. Four Quarters Habitat, Inc. v. Miller, 405 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
The award of “appropriate penalties” is reversed and remanded with instructions to proceed in a manner consistent with this opinion.
McCORD and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kaplan Indus., Inc. v. Rowlett, 565 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…tains no factual findings or conclusions to support the penalty award. It was improper to assess a penalty without indicating the basis of the award. See Jupiter Marine v. Spoelstra, 528 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Stardust Motel v. St. Claire, 418 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The judge should readdress the matter on remand. The order appealed is reversed as to the payment of Dr. Merritt’s medical bills, and the penalty award. On remand the judge should address the pending issues as indicated herein…
-
Dep't OF Transp. v. Montero, 568 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…DCA 1982). However, in addressing the issue of penalties the judge is obligated to recite the ultimate facts and conclusions supporting the decision. See Jupiter Marine v. Spoelstra, 528 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Stardust Motel v. St. Claire, 418 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The order in the present case fails to contain such recitations, and does not delineate the basis upon which the assessment of a penalty was denied. Since the appealed order does not indicate the basis for this ruling, the denia…
-
Earnese Davis v. Broward Cnty. Health Dep't, 570 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…ct or conclusions of law that support the imposition of penalties. See United General Construction v. Cason, 522 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Mulkerrin, 444 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Stardust Motel v. St. Claire, 418 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Accordingly, for the reasons heretofore stated, those portions of the JCC’s order denying wage loss benefits after MMI and assessing penalties against the e/c are reversed and the cause is remanded with instructions to the JCC…
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
- Four Quarters Habitat, Inc. v. Miller, 405 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)