HOTEL ROYAL PLAZA AND RELIANCE INSURANCE CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
KELLY DENNIS EDGAR, 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.
Hotel Royal Plaza and Reliance Insurance Company appealed a workers' compensation order awarding further medical treatment to claimant Kelly Dennis Edgar. The court held that the deputy commissioner erred in striking the employer/carrier's defense of no causal relationship due to failure to timely file a notice to controvert, as the statute does not authorize such dismissal of defenses.
The deputy commissioner exceeded his authority in striking the employer/carrier's defense. While the failure to timely file a notice to controvert may result in a 10% penalty payment, the statute does not authorize the deputy to strike the defense itself. The claimant bears the burden of proving entitlement to benefits, including establishing causal relationship between present complaints and the industrial accident.
[1] A workers' compensation deputy commissioner may not strike an employer/carrier's defense for failure to timely file a notice to controvert when the relevant statute only…
[2] A claimant must prove entitlement to a requested workers' compensation benefit, including establishing a causal relationship between present complaints and an industrial…
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“section 440.20 does not, however, authorize the deputy to strike an employer/carrier's defense as a consequence of failing to timely file a notice to controvert”
Establishes that while penalties are authorized for failure to file timely notice to controvert, striking the defense is not an authorized sanction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant allegedly sustained an industrial back injury in August 1979 and received medical treatment until January 1980. In June 1981, claimant filed …
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 To Controvert cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Employer/carrier appeal a workers’ compensation order by which claimant was awarded further medical examination and treatment. We conclude that the deputy erred in striking employer/carrier’s defense of “no causal relationship,” and we accordingly remand the order appealed.
Claimant allegedly sustained an industrial accident, with injury to her back, in August of 1979. Medical treatment was provided until January of 1980 when claimant’s physician released her from medical care. In June of 1981 a claim was filed requesting additional medical treatment, and application for hearing was made in October of 1981. The hearing was held in January of 1982, at which time employer/carrier controverted the claim for further medical treatment, contending that claimant’s present complaints are not causally related to her industrial accident. Counsel for claimant did not object or seek any continuance, but the deputy nevertheless disallowed employer/carrier’s defense since it had not been previously raised and a formal notice to controvert had not been filed.
Section 440.20(6), Florida Statutes, requires that a notice to controvert be filed “on or before the 21st day after ... knowledge of the alleged injury .... ” Section 440.20(7) provides a “10% additional payment” penalty assessable upon an employer/carrier’s failure to timely file a notice to controvert; section 440.20 does not, however, authorize the deputy to strike an employer/carrier’s defense as a consequence of failing to timely file a notice to controvert. See Virginian Inc. v. Ponder, 72 So. 2d 781 (Fla.1954).
While a deputy commissioner is not bound by technical or formal rules of procedure, see § 440.29(1), Florida Statutes, and may “do all things conformable to law which may be necessary” to effectively discharge the duties of the office, see § 440.-33(1), Florida Statutes, these provisions do not authorize the deputy to strike employer/carrier’s defense in the circumstances of the present case. Although employer/carrier did not timely file a notice to controvert, it was nevertheless incumbent upon claimant to prove entitlement to the requested benefit, including the necessity of establishing a causal relationship between her present complaints and the industrial accident. In the circumstances of this case the deputy exceeded his authority in striking employer/carrier’s defense.
We remand the order appealed for the deputy to conduct further proceedings and consider the issue of causal relationship between claimant’s present complaints and the industrial accident.
McCORD and BOOTH, JJ., concur.