MOSES MAPP, APPELLANT,
v.
ARMCO SPECIALTY STEEL DIVISION & CIGNA, APPELLEES
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.
Appellant's workers' compensation appeal was affirmed in part (wage loss and physician examination denials) and dismissed in part (rehabilitative benefits claim waived for failure to brief).
A claimant waives a claim for rehabilitative benefits by failing to include and argue the point in the appellate brief as required by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
[1] A claimant waives a claim for benefits in an appellate proceeding by failing to include and argue the point in the appellate brief as required by the Florida Rules of App…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMapp, a workers' compensation claimant, appealed a deputy commissioner's order denying wage loss benefits, refusing authorization for examination by a…
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 Briefing Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation case, claimant/appellant appeals from an order of the deputy commissioner (dc) in which (1) he was denied wage loss and rehabilitative benefits; and (2) his request to be evaluated by another physician was denied. As to those portions of the dc's order denying wage loss benefits and refusing to authorize claimant/appellant’s examination by yet another physician, we affirm because those holdings are supported by competent substantial evidence. We do not reach the dc's denial of rehabilitative benefits because, contrary to the requirement of Fla.R.App.P. 9.210(b)(5), claimant/appellant has failed to include in his brief or argue the point.
In ruling on this issue below, the dc noted that claimant/appellant offered no testimony or argument with respect to rehabilitation thereby impelling the conclusion that this claim had been abandoned. Thus, like the dc, we are left to speculate as to the reason(s) for the non-inclusion and non-argument of the claim before this court. Since we have neither the time nor the inclination to plumb the depths of the record in search of matters that could have been raised on appeal, we hold that claimant/appellant waived his claim for rehabilitative benefits by failing to comply with the aforementioned rule.
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH and MINER, JJ., concur. JOANOS, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saccucci v. State, 546 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…as the detrimental reliance upon that conviction allegedly occurring at his current place of confinement. There may be administrative remedies available to Mr. Saccucci. See Morris v. Wainwright, 409 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Cole v. Dugger, 543 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Alternatively, habeas corpus in the jurisdiction where he is incarcerated might provide a remedy.3 We hold only that the trial court was correct in refusing to address Mr. Saccucci’s particular grievance via rule 3.850 or cor-am…
-
Hamby v. State, 619 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…8). If Hamby has exhausted his administrative remedies, he may be entitled to seek a writ of mandamus in the circuit court to compel lawful application of gain time rules. See, e.g., Crain v. State, 579 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Cole v. Dugger, 543 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Hall v. Wainwright, 498 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). DENIED. DAUKSCH and HARRIS, JJ., concur.…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Dottie L. Shaw, 967 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…. REVERSED. THOMAS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur. . See Dep't of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Brandenburg, 891 So. 2d 1071, 1072 & n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (declining to address issues not raised on appeal); Mapp v. Armco Specialty Steel Div., 543 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (same). . Our standard of review is de novo. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Parrish, 873 So. 2d 547, 549 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (ruling that the court's interpretation of the insurance policy for UM coverage was subject to d…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence