ERIC LIDHOLM, APPELLANT,
v.
AETNA LIFE & CASUALTY, A FOREIGN COMPANY, DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
A worker's compensation claimant appealed the denial of his petition for a rule nisi to enforce a deputy commissioner's order requiring the carrier to make home alterations for a wheelchair-bound claimant. The court reversed, holding that once noncompliance with a compensation order is established and the statutory ten-day period has passed, a circuit court must issue the rule nisi without inquiring into the clarity or interpretation of the underlying order.
No. Under section 440.24(1), the sole issue a circuit court must determine is whether the carrier has failed to comply with an order of a judge of compensation claims within ten days after the order becomes final. Once noncompliance is established, the court must issue the rule nisi. Perceived lack of clarity in the compensation order is not a proper basis for denial.
[1] A circuit court's jurisdiction to issue a rule nisi to enforce a workers' compensation order is triggered by the carrier's failure to comply with the order within ten day…
[2] A perceived lack of clarity in a workers' compensation order is not a proper basis for a circuit court to deny a petition for a rule nisi.
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“Under section 440.24(1) the only issue to be determined by a circuit court upon application for rule nisi is whether the carrier has failed to comply with an order of a judge of compensation claims within ten days after the order becomes final.”
Establishes the limited scope of review for rule nisi petitions—courts must focus solely on noncompliance within the statutory period.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 8, 1988, a claimant and employer/carrier entered into a joint stipulation requiring the carrier to make home alterations to accommodate th…
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 Petition For Rule Nisi cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
A worker’s compensation claimant appeals an order which denied his petition for rule nisi to enforce an order of a deputy commissioner. We reverse.
On February 8, 1988, the claimant and the employer/carrier entered into a joint stipulation “to provide services, assistance and/or equipment to claimant.” Paragraph 8 of that stipulation provides that “employer/carrier agrees to make the necessary alterations to the present home or a new home to accommodate a wheelchair victim.” On February 29, 1988, a deputy commissioner entered an order approving the joint stipulation of the claimant and the employer/carrier.
Section 440.24(1), Florida Statutes (1987), provides that in case of the failure of a carrier to comply with an order of a judge of compensation claims within ten days after the order becomes final, any circuit court of this state within the jurisdiction of which the carrier transacts business shall, upon application by any beneficiary under such order, have jurisdiction to issue a rule nisi directing the carrier to show cause why a writ of execution, or such other process as may be necessary to enforce the terms of such order, shall not be issued, and, unless such cause is shown, the court shall have jurisdiction to issue a writ of execution or such other process or final order as may be necessary to enforce the terms of such order of the judge of compensation claims.
The claimant in this case filed a petition under section 440.24(1) for the issuance of a rule nisi, alleging that the appellee (the carrier) had failed to comply with paragraph 8 of the joint stipulation which was approved by the deputy commissioner. The trial judge denied the petition and directed the claimant to return the matter to the judge of compensation claims for clarification. The trial judge found that paragraph 8 of the stipulation “is unclear.”
Under section 440.24(1) the only issue to be determined by a circuit court upon application for rule nisi is whether the carrier has failed to comply with an order of a judge of compensation claims within ten days after the order becomes final. In this case, that issue is undisputed. The appellee has failed to comply with paragraph 8 of the joint stipulation and ten days have passed since the order became final.
Accordingly, it was error for the trial judge to refuse to issue the rule nisi requested by the claimant. A perceived lack of clarity in the compensation order is not a proper basis for the denial of a rule nisi, which the legislature has provided as the means by which a claimant may obtain enforcement of his benefits under a compensation order.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
CAMPBELL and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. & Metro. Dade Cnty. Self-Insurance v. Rolle, 661 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…y in the compensation order is not a proper basis for the denial of a rule nisi, which the legislature has provided as the means by which a claimant may obtain enforcement of his benefits under a compensation order. Lidholm v. Aetna Life, Casualty, 569 So. 2d 905, 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). If the issues made in the rule nisi proceeding require findings of fact, the circuit court may hold an evidentiary hearing for that purpose. See Covert v. Hall, 467 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). When it is necessary to cal…
-
Ross v. Sec. Ins. Co. OF Hartford, 743 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…. Crawford & Co., 670 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Navarro v. Sugarcane Growers Co-op. & Prof'l Adm’rs, Inc., 661 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Metropolitan Dade County v. Rolle, 661 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Lidholm v. Aetna Life & Cas., 569 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In Frank, pursuant to the compensation judge’s order, the employer made weekly payments to the claimant for about three weeks and then unilaterally stopped payments. The claimant filed a petition with the circuit court to enforc…
-
King v. Parker Hannifin Corp. & Underwriters, Inc., 17 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…the circuit court. Notably, at least two other cases have implicitly held that orders providing for medical services or other assistance were the proper subject of rule nisi proceedings in the circuit court. See, e.g., Lidholm v. Aetna Life & Cas., 569 So. 2d 905, 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (reversing denial of petition for rule nisi that sought to enforce an order approving a joint stipulation for the employer/carrier to make alterations to the claimant’s home to accommodate a wheelchair); Navarro v. Sugarcane…