STAFFORD ELECTRIC CO. AND STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
DARWIN J. FEDDER, 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.
Stafford Electric and its insurer appealed a workers' compensation order finding that Fedder's injury was compensable and awarding temporary total disability benefits. The court affirmed, rejecting the carrier's argument that the hearing should have been limited to the compensability issue when the carrier failed to enforce such restriction during the proceeding.
The court affirmed the award, holding that the carrier's restriction on the scope of the hearing was not properly enforced during the proceeding and that the deputy properly responded to evidence presented without objection regarding disability benefits.
[1] An injury sustained on April 14, 1981, may be compensable and entitle an injured party to temporary total disability benefits.
[2] A party's oral stipulation limiting the scope of a hearing may be superseded by subsequent conduct and evidence presented without objection.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We affirm the deputy's order finding that Fedder's injury on April 14, 1981, is compensable and that he is entitled to temporary total disability benefits payable "at the appropriate compensation rate."”
The court's holding affirming compensability and the right to temporary total disability benefits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFedder suffered an injury on April 14, 1981. A pre-hearing stipulation outlined several issues for determination. Before the deputy, there was some di…
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 Compensability cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Chief Judge.
We affirm the deputy’s order finding that Fedder’s injury on April 14, 1981, is compensable and that he is entitled to temporary total disability benefits payable “at the appropriate compensation rate.”
The carrier contends that, despite the pre-hearing stipulation outlining several issues ripe for determination, counsel stipulated orally before the deputy that only compensability would be determined at the hearing here reviewed. There was indeed some conversation to that effect before the deputy, but claimant’s counsel went beyond any self-imposed restriction, inquiring of witnesses without objection into claimant’s medical care and his recent work history. The deputy’s order for payment of temporary total disability benefits, in an amount to be determined by the parties independently or by the deputy in a later hearing, was responsive to that evidence.
Were we now to sustain the carrier’s view that the hearing was limited to the compensability issue, we should now be obliged, after reviewing the evidence on that issue, to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We decline to waste the judicial labor already invested in reviewing the carrier’s appeal, by taking a restricted view of the hearing which the carrier did not protect during the hearing and did not attempt to enforce, through application to the deputy for correction of a claimed oversight, after the order was entered. Sunland Hospital/State of Florida v. Garrett, 415 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Genuine Parts Co. v. Morris, 409 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Acosta Roofing Co. v. Gillyard, 402 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Nor has the carrier alleged on appeal any prejudice as a result of the deputy’s actions.
AFFIRMED.
SHIVERS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chain Store Warehouses & Aetna Ins. Co. v. Picard, 431 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…ly tempted, the need to preserve our role as a court of review, limited to deciding issues of law first presented to a deputy, requires that the award be affirmed for want of a significant contest on the issue below. Stafford Electric Co. v. Fedder, 419 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Sunland Hospital/State of Florida v. Garrett, 415 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see also D & J Windows v. Sweitzer, 420 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Dade American Hospital Supply v. Perez, 417 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…
Authorities Cited
- Sunland Hospital/State OF Florida v. Garrett, 415 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Acosta Roofing Co. & Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Gussie Gillyard, 402 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Genuine Parts Co. & Sentry Indem. Co. v. Morris, 409 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)