INDUSTRIAL STEEL AND CNA INSURANCE GROUP, APPELLANTS,
v.
WAYNE ROBINSON, 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.
In a workers' compensation case, the Florida District Court of Appeal dismissed Industrial Steel and CNA Insurance Group's appeal of a deputy commissioner's order because the order was interlocutory, having established entitlement to attendant care benefits while reserving jurisdiction to determine the amount in a future hearing.
The order is interlocutory and not reviewable by appeal because it does not dispose of all matured issues in controversy between the parties—it establishes entitlement but reserves jurisdiction over the amount of benefits due.
[1] An order that establishes entitlement to benefits but reserves jurisdiction to determine the amount of benefits due is interlocutory and not reviewable by appeal.
[2] An order that disposes of less than all matters ripe for determination is interlocutory and not reviewable by appeal.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Because this order disposes of less than all matters which are ripe for determination it is interlocutory and not reviewable by appeal.”
Establishes the core legal principle that orders failing to dispose of all matured issues are not final and thus not appealable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe deputy commissioner ordered the employer/carrier to reimburse the claimant's wife for attendant care services retroactive from the date requested,…
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 Attendant Care Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation case the employer/carrier seeks review of an order of the deputy commissioner which does not dispose of all matured issues in controversy between the parties. In the decretal portion of the order, the deputy commis sioner ordered the employer/carrier to, inter alia, “reimburse the claimant’s wife for attendant care service retroactive from the date it was requested, as recommended by Dr. Rosenberg, the amount of which is to be determined by subsequent testimony at a later hearing.” This order, in essence, establishes entitlement to benefits but reserves jurisdiction to determine the amount of benefits due. Because this order disposes of less than all matters which are ripe for determination it is interlocutory and not reviewable by appeal. Southern Wine & Spirits, Inc. v. Hernandez, 442 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Sheffield Steel Products v. Tripp, 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 Electric Co. v. Hawkins, 413 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Wash House v. Tucker, 413 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed sua sponte. Such dismissal shall not preclude subsequent review upon appeal from a final order. SHIVERS, JOANOS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ESI and Riscorp v. Taylor, 588 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…for attendant care, describing the issue as “unripe” because of a need for additional testimony. This is an improper appeal of an interlocutory order which reserves jurisdiction as to the claim for attendant care. See Industrial Steel v. Robinson, 444 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The claim was not “unripe” merely because the judge desired further evidence, and this case does not involve the due process concerns identified in Winkel v. Grand Union Stores, 436 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). This court lac…
-
Metro. Life & Travelers Ins. Co. v. Corine Antonucci, 469 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…all issues concerning the claim for compensation and extent of medical benefits due claimant. Because the order disposes of less than all matters ripe for determination, it is interlocutory and not reviewable by appeal. Industrial Steel v. Robinson, 444 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA [*954] 1984); Southern Wine & Spirits, Inc. v. Hernandez, 442 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Sheffield Steel Products v. Tripp, 433 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); LaCroix Construction Co. v. Bush, 431 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983);…
-
Smith v. Sarasota Professional Sports, 508 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…appeal is dismissed. Such dismissal shall not preclude review of this order upon subsequent appeal from a final order. Metropolitan Life and Travelers Insurance Company v. Antonucci, 469 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Industrial Steel v. Robinson, 444 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Consolidated Natures Prime v. Lorenzoni, 458 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Town of Palm Beach v. Watts, 426 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Wash House v. Tucker, 413 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). BOOTH, C.J., and NIMMONS…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- The Wash House & S.C. Ins. Co. v. Tucker, 413 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Seidlin v. State, 426 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Mills Elec. Contractors & Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Marthens, 417 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- The Crown Hotel & Kent Ins. Co. v. Friedman, 420 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Gen. Elec. Co. & Elec. Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Hawkins, 413 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Cast Crete Corp. & R. P. Hewitt & Assocs. v. Turner, 413 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- S. Wine & Spirits, Inc. v. Felipe Hernandez and the Division of Workers' Compensation, 442 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Wood v. State, 431 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- State v. Waters, 416 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Osceola Cnty. Comm'rs & U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Enos Thomas, 416 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)