ESTECH GENERAL CHEMICALS CORPORATION AND FRED S. JAMES & COMPANY OF FLORIDA, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
BOBBY W. GRAHAM, 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.
An order that does not dispose of all matured issues is interlocutory and not appealable, but review may be granted via certiorari.
Employer/carrier sought review of a workers' compensation order that failed to address all issues presented, including maximum medical improvement and…
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/carrier seek review of a 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. 2d 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In the present case issues relating to the attainment of maximum medical improvement, and entitlement to permanent wage-loss benefits, were raised in the claim for compensation and the pre-trial stipulation. During the course of the hearing the deputy indicated his intention to reserve jurisdiction in this regard. Although the deputy subsequently stated that he would rule on the wage-loss issue, the order in this case contains no express finding as to either the attainment of maximum medical improvement or entitlement to permanent wage-loss benefits. Counsel for employer/carrier thereafter requested an amended order expressly addressing these issues, but the record on appeal suggests that the deputy never responded to this request. In these circumstances failure to rule on such issues as were matured and presented for adjudication is a departure from the essential requirements of law.
The cause is accordingly remanded with directions that the deputy enter an order addressing the issue of whether claimant has attained maximum medical improvement and whether permanent wage-loss benefits are due. Such remand is without prejudice to the parties’ ability to obtain review of other issues which are now inappropriately presented for our consideration; such review may be sought by appeal of a final order disposing of all matured issues.
McCORD and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Betancourt v. Sears Roebuck & Co. & Kemper Ins. Co., 693 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…A 1983), as supporting authority. Claimant contends that the outcome of the jurisdictional question is instead controlled by such cases as Dunn Lumber & Supply Co. v. Roy, 382 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Estech General Chemicals Corp. v. Graham, 424 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Washington Square Associates, Ltd. v. Bourne, 408 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); and Thomas v. T & T Trucking, 382 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). These cases stand for the proposition that when a ripe claim is presented, and t…
-
Fla. Hwy. Patrol & Div. of Risk Mgmt. v. Derry Ann Kraszewski, 559 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…ge loss benefits from May 20, 1987 through the date of the hearing. Appellants correctly argue that the issue was ripe for adjudication, and the judge of compensation claims was required to rule on it. Estech General Chemicals Corporation v. Graham, 424 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The cause is remanded with directions that the judge enter an order addressing claimant’s entitlement to the requested benefits, based on the evidence already introduced below. REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions. BOOTH,…
-
Hicks v. Putnam Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Home Ins. Co., 464 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…e deputy for the purpose of determining MMI and for a statement of her findings of fact supporting her determination of MMI. A deputy must adjudicate all issues which are presented and ripe for disposition. Estech General Chemical Corp. v. Graham, 424 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Because the evidence in this case is conflicting on the date of MMI, it is necessary that the deputy set forth her findings of fact so that we might determine how she reached her conclusion and if supported by CSE. Kennedy v. Ty…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wash. Square Assocs., Ltd. v. Honey Bourne, 408 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- The Crown Hotel & Kent Ins. Co. v. Friedman, 420 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)