THE COCA-COLA COMPANY-FOODS DIVISION AND GENERAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, APPELLANTS,
v.
LLOYD DAVIS, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1989-07-06
No. 88-2500
WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
546 So. 2d 93 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1989) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases


Opinion of the Court
ZEHMER, Judge.

ZEHMER, Judge.

Employer/carrier seeks to appeal an order in which the deputy commissioner found that the claimant sustained a compensable accident, but reserved jurisdiction to determine the benefits to which claimant is entitled. We do not have jurisdiction to review this non-final order. See La Croix Construction Co. v. Bush, 431 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Waters, 416 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Mills Electrical Contractors v. Marthens, 417 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); The Wash House v. Tucker, 413 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); General Electric Co. v. Hawkins, 413 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice to review the order in the event of an appeal from a final order awarding benefits.

WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Am. Boom & Barrier, Inc. v. Stewart, 592 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
    …within thirty days on agreement of past medical benefits indicates the judge continues to exercise jurisdiction in this matter. Accordingly, the order is not a final order and is therefore not appealable. Coca-Cola Company— Foods Division v. Davis, 546 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. BOOTH, BARFIELD and MINER, JJ., concur.…
  • City OF Miami v. Rantanen, 645 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
    …coverage, a necessary component in the determination of claimant’s average weekly wage. The City’s failure to produce such information more readily within its control justifies an inference adverse to the City’s position. See Tile Plus v. Albanese, 546 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Thus, the JCC did not err in establishing a reasonable value for claimant’s fringe benefits and did not err in his determination of claimant’s average weekly wage. The City next argues that the JCC erred in determining that the…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw