RAY ROOFING CO., INC. AND RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
DANIEL YOUNG, 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.
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals from non-final interim orders in workers' compensation cases.
Employer/carrier appealed a workers' compensation order determining a claimant sustained a compensable injury, but reserving other issues for future a…
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 Certiorari Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Employer/earrier appeal a workers’ compensation order which determined that claimant sustained a compensable injury.1 The order further reserves jurisdiction “to consider all other issues pertaining to payment of benefits to the claimant as a result of his compensable accident.” The record on appeal establishes that various pending issues, including entitlement to temporary total disability benefits and computation of average weekly wage and compensation rate, have been reserved for the deputy’s ultimate adjudication and are as yet unresolved. In these circumstances the order appealed is a non-final interim order. See Town of Palm Beach v. Watts, Case No. AG—291 (Fla. 1st DCA, June 18, 1982). This court’s jurisdiction does not include appeals from nonfinal orders of a deputy commissioner. See The Wash House v. Tucker, 413 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). No circumstances appear to be present in this case to. warrant our exercise of certiorari jurisdiction.
Since this court is without jurisdiction to review the contested order, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Such dismissal is without prejudice to the parties’ ability to obtain review of the issue in question by timely appeal from a final order. BOOTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur. . While the order appealed makes no express award of any specific benefit, at the commencement of the hearing counsel for employer/carrier indicated that medical benefits would not require adjudication and would be handled administratively “in the event of compensability.” In these circumstances the deputy’s finding of compensability has the ultimate effect of awarding such benefits, and we therefore do not consider that the absence of an express award of benefits would make the order interlocutory if it could otherwise be regarded as disposing of all matured issues in controversy between the parties on the claim.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Doll House, Inc. v. Porter, 436 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…ermine benefits has generally been found to be a non-reviewable, non-final order. See, Town of Palm Beach v. Watts, 426 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); The Crown Hotel v. Friedman, 420 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Ray Roofing Co., Inc. v. Young, 419 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Special Disability Trust Fund v. Motor and Compressor Company, 417 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Mills Electrical Contractors v. Marthens, 417 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); General Electric Company v. Hawkins, 413 So. 2d 83…
-
Martin Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs & Commercial Risk Mgmt. v. Jones, 595 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…. BOOTH and WOLF, JJ., concur. . This order is not considered interlocutory because the JCC has made a finding of compensa-bility and has disposed of all other issues ripe for review. As Judge Wentworth explained in Ray Roofing Co., Inc. v. Young, 419 So. 2d 672, 673, n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982): While the order appealed makes no express award of any specific benefit, at the commencement of the hearing counsel for employer/carrier indicated that medical benefits would not require adjudication and would be han…
Authorities Cited
- The Wash House & S.C. Ins. Co. v. Tucker, 413 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)