A & J TIE BEAM SERVICE AND AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT J. KENDLE, JR. 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 this workers' compensation appeal, the court held that the employer/carrier failed to preserve its argument challenging the claimant's entitlement to catastrophic loss benefits. The court found reversible error in the duration of the catastrophic loss award, which exceeded the statutory six-month limit from the date of injury.
The court declined to consider the merits of the employer/carrier's argument challenging entitlement to catastrophic loss benefits because the issue was not preserved for appellate review. However, the court found reversible error in the duration of the award, as catastrophic loss benefits under section 440.15(2)(b), Florida Statutes, may not extend beyond six months from the date of injury.
[1] A general denial of entitlement to particular workers' compensation benefits is insufficient to preserve specific legal theories for appellate review.
[2] An employer/carrier must clearly and contemporaneously present all impediments to paying benefits to the deputy commissioner to preserve them for appeal.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“when a plausible case for particular compensation is shown, all the carrier's impediments to promptly paying those benefits shall be made known to the deputy clearly and contemporaneously, and in substantially the same detail as the carrier would later wish to urge upon us.”
Establishes the standard for preserving arguments in workers' compensation cases: carriers must articulate specific defenses with detail at the deputy commissioner level.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant was injured on July 8, 1985. The deputy commissioner awarded catastrophic loss benefits for 26 weeks beginning December 10, 1985. The emp…
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 Preservation Of Issues For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
The employer/carrier (e/c) in this workers’ compensation appeal argue that the deputy commissioner (deputy) erred in finding the claimant entitled to catastrophic loss benefits. We decline to consider the merits of the argument because it was not preserved for review.
The e/c simply did not argue to the deputy that catastrophic loss benefits were not due, much less why they were not due. As we stated in Sunland Hospital/State of Florida v. Garrett, 415 So. 2d 783, at 785 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982):
[W]hen a plausible case for particular compensation is shown, all the carrier’s impediments to promptly paying those benefits shall be made known to the deputy clearly and contemporaneously, and in substantially the same detail as the carrier would later wish to urge upon us.
Mere general denial of entitlement to particular benefits will not suffice to preserve for appellate review specific legal theories in defense of claims. See Saunders Contracting v. Clemens, 492 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Despite the e/c’s failure to preserve the issue of entitlement to catastrophic loss benefits, we nevertheless find reversible error in the duration of the catastrophic loss award. The claimant was injured on 8 July 1985. The deputy awarded catastrophic loss benefits for 26 weeks beginning 10 December 1985. As we recently observed in Occidental Chemical Co. v. Howard, 508 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), section 440.15(2)(b), Florida Statutes, expressly provides that catastrophic loss benefits may in no event extend beyond six months from the date of injury.
We therefore reverse the award of catastrophic loss benefits for all periods more than six months from the date of injury, and remand for the deputy to determine whether the claimant is entitled to catastrophic loss benefits for any period from the date of injury to 10 December 1985. That portion of the present catastrophic loss award from 10 December 1985 to six months from the date of injury is affirmed.
The award of interest, penalties, and costs is affirmed with the proviso that interest and penalties on catastrophic loss benefits should be calculated based on the duration and amount of catastrophic loss benefits ultimately awarded. The deputy’s reservation of jurisdiction to determine entitlement to and amount of claimant’s attorneys’ fee was proper. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SMITH, C.J. and ERVIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Prestressed Decking Corp. & Travelers Ins. Co. v. Edgardo Medrano, 556 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…al. Sunland Hospital v. Garrett, 415 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); B & J Windows v. Sweitzer, 420 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Austen Construction Management Corp. v. Waters, 508 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); A & J Tie Beam Service v. Kendle, 511 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Accordingly, we affirm as to this issue. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. SHIVERS, C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur. . This award is for care the wife provided while the suit was pending. During…
-
City OF Melbourne & Old Dominion Ins. Co. v. Dannie M. Haddock & Rockwood Ins. Co., 533 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…al argument was not raised below or in this court, we will not base our decision on it. Sunland Hospital v. Garrett, 415 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); A & J Windows v. Sweitzer, 420 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); A & J Tie Beam Service v. Kendle, 511 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Under the rationale expressed in Atkins Construction Company v. Wilson, 509 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), Oaks Farm v. Berry, 500 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), Flagship National Bank of Broward County v. Hinkle, 479 So. 2d…
-
Showell Farms & Helmsman Mgmt. Servs. c/o Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dessie Carter, 633 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…same detail as the carrier would later wish to urge upon us. Mere general denial of entitlement to particular benefits will not suffice to preserve for appellate review specific legal theories in defense of claims. A & J Tie Beam Service v. Kendle, 511 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), quoting Sunland Hospital/State of Florida v. Garrett, 415 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The parties’ stipulation and the reconstructed record demonstrate that e/sa waived the defense that the amended version of section 440.15…
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
- Sunland Hospital/State OF Florida v. Garrett, 415 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Saunders Contracting & Cincinatti Ins. Co. v. Clemens, 492 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Occidental Chem. Co. & Crawford & Co. v. Howard, 508 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)