SILVESTRE ANDRES DOMINGUEZ
v.
SOUTH EAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC./PACKARD CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION, CENTERLINE DIRECTIONAL DRILLING SERVICE, INC./LION INSURANCE
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 a workers' compensation case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a JCC's dismissal of a claimant's petition for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. The court held that the JCC retained jurisdiction over the claim despite the employer/carrier's voluntary acceptance of PTD status, because it was unclear whether benefits were actually paid to the claimant and the JCC had jurisdiction over associated costs.
The JCC retained jurisdiction over the PTD claim because: (1) the employer/carrier did not administratively accept PTD status until October 4, 2018, after the first petition was filed on September 7, 2018; (2) the JCC retained jurisdiction over costs associated with the petition; and (3) it was unclear whether the claimant received any benefits between the acceptance date and the filing date, entitling him to an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A Judge of Compensation Claims retains jurisdiction over a workers' compensation case even after the employer/carrier voluntarily accepts the claimant as permanently tota…
[2] A Judge of Compensation Claims has jurisdiction over a workers' compensation case at the time a petition for benefits is filed, even if the employer/carrier later adminis…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“But the JCC had jurisdiction over the case when the first PFB was filed, because the E/C did not administratively accept Claimant as PTD until October 4, 2018.”
Establishes that timing of the administrative acceptance relative to the petition filing determines jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant was injured in April 2017. On September 7, 2018, he filed a petition for benefits seeking PTD benefits. On October 4, 2018, the employer/carr…
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 Workers' Compensation Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant challenges an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) dismissing Claimant’s claim for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. For the reasons below, we reverse. Claimant was injured in April 2017. On September 7, 2018, he filed the first of two petitions for benefits (PFB) seeking PTD
benefits. The Employer/Carrier (E/C) filed their first response to the PFB on October 4, 2018; therein, they stated, “The employer/carrier voluntarily accepts the injured worker as permanently totally disabled starting of August 21, 2018,” and agreed to pay “reasonable taxable cost associated with the filing of the petition.” The JCC concluded that she lacked jurisdiction. But the JCC had jurisdiction over the case when the first PFB was filed, because the E/C did not administratively accept Claimant as PTD until October 4, 2018. The E/C’s voluntary acceptance did not remove the matter from the JCC’s jurisdiction because the JCC retained jurisdiction over costs, and because it was never clear that Claimant received any benefits between the date the E/C concedes Claimant was entitled to PTD benefits (August 21, 2018) and the date Claimant lodged his claim for PTD benefits (September 7, 2018). Claimant’s counsel averred that the E/C had not paid those benefits and argued that Claimant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the matter. We agree and therefore REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. WOLF and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., and DUNCAN, J. SCOTT, ASSOCIATE JUDGE, concur. _____________________________