SUNNY PINES CONVALESCENT CENTER AND HEWITT COLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
MARY WALTERS, 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 affirmed the award of temporary total disability benefits but remanded to exclude any periods during which the claimant was employed, as the record did not specify the duration or earnings of such employment.
Temporary total disability benefits are properly awarded for the period claimed, except for any time the claimant was actually employed, and the matter must be remanded to determine the precise periods of employment to be excluded.
[1] Temporary total disability benefits must be reduced or excluded for periods during which the claimant was gainfully employed, even if the claimant remains unable to retur…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA maid claimant received temporary total disability benefits from May 31, 1980 to September 30, 1981, but the record showed she was employed for a sho…
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 Gainful Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
The Employer/Carrier (E/C) appeal the award of temporary total disability (TTD) benefits from May 31, 1980, to September 30, 1981. We affirm in part and reverse in part
There is competent and substantial evidence in the record to support the finding by the Deputy Commissioner (DC) that claimant was temporarily and totally disabled during the period for which temporary total disability benefits were awarded. However, the record reveals that claimant was employed as a maid for a short time during the period for which TTD benefits were awarded. On this basis, we affirm the award of TTD benefits during the period between May 31, 1980 and September 30, 1981, except for the period during which claimant was employed. Since the record does not reveal precisely how long claimant was employed or how much she earned during the period between May 31, 1980 and September 30, 1981, we must remand the matter to the DC with instructions that he affirm the award of TTD benefits except for any periods that claimant was employed.
We also affirm the DC’s decision to retain jurisdiction for the purpose of determining a reasonable attorney’s fee. We do so because, with respect to that issue, the order is non-final and, as such, non-appeala-ble.
ERVIN and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.M. v. Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 189 So. 3d 134 (Fla. 2016)…not final); Shaw v. Fla. Steel Corp., 794 So. 2d 708, 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (in a worker’s compensation case, a reservation of jurisdiction to order payment rendered the order non-final and nonappealable); Sunny Pines Convalescent Ctr. v. Walters, 422 So. 2d 1079, 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (in the context of an employer/carrier appeal of an award of temporary total disability benefits, an order was non-final and non-appealable because the court had retained jurisdiction to determine attorney’s fees); Fla. Far…
-
Hobbs v. Hobbs, 518 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…n to determine the amount of the award of attorney’s fees and costs to the Wife.” As jurisdiction was merely reserved for the award of attorney’s fees, appeal of that portion of the order is premature. See Sunny Pines Convalescent Center v. Walters, 422 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED for consistent proceedings. JOANOS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. . The language used in the judgment describing the marital home is as follows: The wife shall have as her sole and…
-
Dep't OF Child. & Families v. Monroe, 744 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…4); Clay Hyder Trucking v. Lastinger, 586 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Kolmel Plumbing, Inc. v. Kolmel, 448 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); City of Tampa v. Fein, 438 So. 2d 442, 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Sunny Pines Convalescent Ctr. v. Walters, 422 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The order reserved jurisdiction to set the amount of fees and contemplated further proceedings, if necessary. Insofar as the order under review is appealable, it is AFFIRMED. BARFIELD, C.J., and WEBSTER, J., CONCUR.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence