JUPITER MARINE AND AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ERIK SPOELSTRA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Interest On Award cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants assert that the deputy commissioner’s final order erroneously failed to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law relative to the deputy’s award of penalties and interest. In Stardust Motel v. St. Claire, 418 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), 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.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
ERVIN, JOANOS and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami v. Bell, 606 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…n 440.20(7) awards penalties against the employer or carrier depending upon fault. Further, the order awarding such penalties should contain sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting their imposition. Jupiter Marine v. Spoelstra, 528 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). [emphasis added]…
-
Kaplan Indus., Inc. v. Rowlett, 565 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…se matters. The challenged order also assesses a penalty, but contains no factual findings or conclusions to support the penalty award. It was improper to assess a penalty without indicating the basis of the award. See Jupiter Marine v. Spoelstra, 528 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Stardust Motel v. St. Claire, 418 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The judge should readdress the matter on remand. The order appealed is reversed as to the payment of Dr. Merritt’s medical bills, and the penalty award. On rem…
-
Dep't OF Transp. v. Montero, 568 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…See Paver Development Corp. v. McDevitt, 419 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). However, in addressing the issue of penalties the judge is obligated to recite the ultimate facts and conclusions supporting the decision. See Jupiter Marine v. Spoelstra, 528 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Stardust Motel v. St. Claire, 418 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The order in the present case fails to contain such recitations, and does not delineate the basis upon which the assessment of a penalty was denied. Since the ap…
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
- Stardust Motel & Cas. Reciprocal Exch. v. Anne P. ST. Claire, 418 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Horacio Alvarez v. Sharon Hotel & Corporate Grp. Servs., 444 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Mulkerrin, 444 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)