ALRO METALS AND HOME INDEMNITY COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
CHARLES PULLINS, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1984-06-15
No. AW-256
SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
451 So. 2d 1001 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1984) Caution
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that the deputy commissioner's order awarding wage-loss benefits was supported by competent and substantial evidence, except for the commencement date, which was modified.

Facts & Procedural History

The employer and carrier appealed an order awarding wage-loss benefits. The order allowed benefits to commence on December 1, 1980, but the claimant w…

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.

Topics
Finality Of Orders Wage Loss Benefits Competent Substantial Evidence

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Finality Of Orders cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
ZEHMER, Judge.

ZEHMER, Judge.

The employer and carrier appeal the deputy commissioner’s order awarding wage-loss benefits from December 1, 1980, to September 1, 1981. With the single exception noted below, we find the order is supported by competent and substantial evidence.

The order allows wage-loss benefits commencing December 1, 1980. The claim alleged benefits were due commencing December 14. The undisputed evidence shows that claimant was employed until December 18. The order is hereby modified to commence benefits on December 18. Ordinarily, we would not correct this discrepancy on appeal because it could have, and indeed should have, been brought to the attention of the deputy within the thirty-day statutory period before becoming final. E.g., Juma Construction v. Villaneuva, 437 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Sunland Hospital v. Garrett, 415 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); § 440.25(4)(a), Fla.Stat. (1981). We do so only because claimant concedes this error. The only error demonstrated by appellants should have been presented to the deputy for correction. The other contentions of appellants are so lacking in merit as to render this appeal frivolous. A fee in the amount of $2,000 is allowed for the services of claimant’s attorney.

The appealed order, as modified, is AFFIRMED.

SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Crown Carpentry, Inc. v. Guillen, 547 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
    …iate compensation rate. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED in part. SMITH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. . Claimant urges appellate revision of the MMI date in accordance with Dr. Tucker's testimony under the authority of Alro Metals v. Pullins, 451 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We decline to apply Alro Metals because the instant case does not involve the sort of correctable discrepancy presented there.…
  • VIC Potamkin Chevrolet & Lynn Underwriting v. Hernandez, 454 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
    …. The fee award here, as the court found in Bird, “appears on the evidence to be properly assessed.” Additional authority for award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in a workers’ compensation appeal may be found in Alro Metals v. Pullins, 451 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). An attorney’s fee in the amount of $2,000 is hereby awarded to claimant’s counsel to be paid by appellants’ for the appellate representation in this case. SHIVERS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw