DELOUIS AUGUSTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
BLOUNT, INC. AND AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY, AND DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 1991-01-03
No. 90-3113
SHIVERS, C.J., and NIMMONS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
573 So. 2d 104 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1991) Caution
Cited by 95 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that an order dismissing a workers' compensation claim without prejudice is not a final order and therefore not immediately appealable.

Facts & Procedural History

DeLouis Augustin filed a workers' compensation claim. The employer/carrier moved to dismiss the claim for failing to specify benefits and requesting b…

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.

Topics
Judicial Labor Final Order Dismissal Without Prejudice Worker'S Compensation Claim

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judicial Labor cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

ON APPELLEES’ MOTION TO DISMISS

PER CURIAM.

DeLouis Augustin filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits for an accident that occurred in April, 1990. The employer/carrier moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that it failed to specify the benefits due and it requested benefits not yet due. Judge Jacobsen entered an order captioned “Final Order of Dismissal” which states in the decretal portion that the claim “is hereby dismissed without prejudice.” This appeal followed.1

The appellees now move to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the order sought to be reviewed is not a final order. We agree. A final order is one which constitutes an end to the judicial labor in the cause. Howard v. Ziegler, 40 So. 2d 776, 777 (Fla.1949). It is clear from the context of the proceedings below that the dismissal of appellant’s claim was without prejudice to his right to file an amended claim that corrects the defects identified in the motion to dismiss. The judicial labor in the lower tribunal is obviously not at an end and it therefore follows that the order is not final and we are without jurisdiction to review it. Hancock v. Piper, 186 So. 2d 489 (Fla.1966). If claimant is unwilling or unable to amend his claim to correct the defects raised in the motion to dismiss, his proper course is to so advise the Judge of Compensation Claims and request entry of a final order of dismissal with prejudice which may be appealed. American Credit Card Telephone Co. v. National Pay Telephone Corp., 504 So. 2d 486, 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

It therefore appearing that the order of the Judge of Compensation Claims was not a final order, appellee’s motion is granted and we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

SHIVERS, C.J., and NIMMONS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. . Judge Jacobsen previously entered an order which granted the motion to dismiss. An appeal from that order was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by unpublished order.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (50 total)

  • Pansy O. Carlton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 621 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
    …990) (order dismissing action “without prejudice” is a final order when it is clear that the order was intended to be “without prejudice” to file another action, rather than to amend the complaint in the first action), with Augustin v. Blount, Inc., 573 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA1991) (“final order” dismissing claim “without prejudice” is not final for appellate purposes when it is clear that the order was intended to be “without prejudice” to amend). Moreover, had we reached the conclusion that the order was n…
  • Alfonson Detroy Ponton and Reginald J. Williams v. Officer B.E. Gross, 576 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
    …a.1966). If appellants are unable or unwilling to amend the complaint to correct the defects, the proper course is to so advise the court and request entry of a final order of dismissal with prejudice which may be appealed. Augustin v. Blount, Inc., 573 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). As no appealable final order has been rendered, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. SHIVERS, C.J., ERVIN, J„ and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.…
  • Hinote v. Ford Motor Co., 958 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
    …the appellants to file a new complaint in a separate action or whether it was intended to allow the appellants to file an amended complaint in this action, it was not clear whether this order was a final appealable order. Compare Augustin v. Blount, 573 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)(holding dismissal without prejudice to amend complaint in same action is not final), with Carlton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 621 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(holding dismissal without prejudice to raise issues in a separate futu…

Previewing 3 of 50 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw