THE CROWN HOTEL AND KENT INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
PHILIP FRIEDMAN AND DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, APPELLEES
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Employer/carrier appeal a workers’ compensation order which patently does not dispose of all matured issues in controversy between the parties. The date of maximum medical improvement having been set, the issue of wage loss was ripe for adjudication. The deputy commissioner’s decision to withhold determination of that issue renders the order interlocutory and non-appeal-able. Town of Palm Beach v. Watts, 7 FLW 1330, Case No. AG-291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
The appeal is therefore dismissed sua sponte without prejudice to seek review of the order in the event of an appeal from a final order on the claim.
McCORD and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Indus. Steel & CNA Ins. Grp. v. Robinson, 444 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…, 433 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Davis v. Hunt, 432 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); La Croix Construction Co. v. Bush, 431 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Town of Palm Beach v. Watts, 426 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Crown Hotel v. Friedman, 420 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Mills Electrical Contractors v. Marthens, 417 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); rev. denied, 429 So. 2d 6 (Fla.1983); State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Waters, 416 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); General El…
-
Estech Gen. Chems. Corp. & Fred S. James & Co. of Fla., Inc. v. Graham, 424 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…workers’ compensation order which does not dispose of all matured issues which were in controversy and submitted for the deputy’s adjudication. While such an order is patently interlocutory and not reviewable by appeal, see Crown Hotel v. Friedman, 420 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), we grant review under our certiorari jurisdiction pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(2)(A). A deputy commissioner must adjudicate all issues which are presented and ripe for disposition. See Washington Square v. Bourne, 408 So.…
-
Winkel v. Grand Union Stores & Crawford & Co., 436 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…efits after finding that claimant had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) prior to the hearing. Thus, the order would appear facially to be non-final and non-appealable because it did not dispose of all pending claims. Crown Hotel v. Friedman, 420 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). However, because of circumstances in this case explained more fully below, we find that the issue of wage loss entitlement was not mature at the time of the hearing, and we therefore review and affirm the order on temporary bene…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence