FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CO., SELF-INSURED, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN T. MULKERRIN, 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 held that the deputy commissioner erred by awarding a penalty without making findings of fact or conclusions of law to support it.
A self-insured employer appealed an order awarding a claimant interest and penalties on past due compensation. The employer argued the deputy commissi…
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 Penalties cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
In this workers’ compensation case the self-insured employer appeals an order of the deputy commissioner which awards the claimant interest on past due compensation and penalties. Appellant argues that the deputy commissioner erred by making no findings of fact or conclusions of law concerning the imposition of the penalty. We agree and, therefore, reverse and remand on that point.
The order sub judice states simply, “The Claimant is entitled to penalties in the amount of 10% on past due compensation in the amount of $2,665.60, which computes to a total amount due of $266.56.” The order makes no findings of fact or conclusions of law relative to this award. In Stardust Motel v. St. Claire, 418 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), this court stated:
The imposition of the proper penalty should not be left to inference, but should be set forth in a finding by the DC that states the ultimate facts and conclusions supporting the imposition of the penalty. The DC has the same obligation to state the ultimate facts and conclusions supporting the imposition of a penalty as he has in regard to any other award of benefits. Id. at 1151-1152. See also Fairmont Re-Bar Fab v. White, 438 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Four Quarters Habitat, Inc. v. Miller, 405 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Accordingly, the order is reversed and the cause remanded for the deputy commissioner to make findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the penalty imposed. In all other respects the order appealed is affirmed.
JOANOS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Earnese Davis v. Broward Cnty. Health Dep't, 570 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…s well established that an order must set forth the findings of fact or conclusions of law that support the imposition of penalties. See United General Construction v. Cason, 522 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Mulkerrin, 444 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Stardust Motel v. St. Claire, 418 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Accordingly, for the reasons heretofore stated, those portions of the JCC’s order denying wage loss benefits after MMI and assessing penalties against the e/c a…
-
Jupiter Marine & Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Spoelstra, 528 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…, we held that the deputy commissioner has the same obligation to state the ultimate facts and conclusions supporting the imposition of a penalty as he has in regard to any other award of benefits. See also, Florida Power and Light Co. v. Mulkerrin, 444 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the deputy commissioner to make appropriate findings and conclusions with regard to the above. We have examined the other issues raised by the appellants and find them to be without merit…
-
Cuccarollo v. Gulf Coast Bldg. Contractors & U.S.F. & G., 500 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…claimant had sustained permanent impairment was error. Neither party argues that such issue was not ripe for determination. The case, then, should be remanded to the deputy to make this essential finding, cf. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Mulkerrin, 444 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) — unless, of course, the error can be deemed only harmless in light of the deputy’s explicit ruling on the issue now on review. The deputy’s determination that no causal connection existed between the wage-loss suffered and clai…
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
- Four Quarters Habitat, Inc. v. Miller, 405 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Stardust Motel & Cas. Reciprocal Exch. v. Anne P. ST. Claire, 418 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Fairmont Re-Bar FAB & Old Republic Ins. Co. v. White, 438 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)