JARRELL JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
MAISON BLANCHE AND CRAWFORD AND COMPANY, 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.
The court held that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) abused her discretion by failing to consider a deposition that the parties had agreed to admit via pretrial stipulation.
[1] A judge of compensation claims abuses discretion by failing to consider deposition testimony when a pretrial stipulation provides sufficient notice that the deposition wi…
[2] A pretrial stipulation controls the subsequent course of an action unless modified to prevent injustice.
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 intelligenceA claimant was injured at work and later stipulated with the employer to admit a deposition into evidence. The JCC refused to consider the deposition,…
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 Claim For Compensation Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from a final order denying compensation benefits. For the following reasons, we reverse.
On June 24, 1987, claimant was injured as a result of a work-related electrical shock incurred while installing ceiling lights. Claimant continued working for the employer until approximately one year after the accident. However, he testified that he could not complete many of the tasks assigned and often delegated assignments to others.
On March 16, 1990, the parties entered into a pretrial stipulation, whereby the parties agreed that the deposition of Dr. Gut-man would be admitted into evidence. Dr. Gutman was deposed on March 26, 1990, and the deposition was submitted at final hearing on April 5, 1990. The judge of compensation claims (JCC) failed to consider the deposition and held that:
I have accepted into evidence only those depositions which were filed pursuant to my local rules. More specifically, all depositions must be filed and received at least five days prior to the date of the hearing. That local rule is specifically and precisely stated on all pre-trial stipulations and was plainly written on the pre-trial, signed by both parties in this case.
We hold that the JCC abused her discretion in failing to consider the deposition testimony of Dr. Gutman. Contrary to the JCC’s order, the pretrial stipulation does not specifically and precisely state that depositions must be filed five days prior to final hearing. Because the pretrial stipulation provided sufficient notice that Dr. Gut-man’s deposition would be relied upon,1 and because the stipulation contained no reference to the local rule, we must reverse.
Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
BOOTH, JOANOS and ALLEN, JJ., concur. . Florida Worker's Compensation Rule of Procedure 4.100(d) provides that the pretrial order “shall control the subsequent course of the action unless the Deputy Commissioner modifies it to prevent injustice." Absent any showing of injustice, the pretrial stipulation is controlling.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Corr. v. van Poyck, 610 So. 2d 1333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…arately, and the orders were reversed and remanded, either for entry of an order specifically stating grounds warranting dismissal or for further proceedings on the petitions pursuant to section 120.56(2). See Van Poyck v. Fla. Dep’t of Corrections, 580 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Ramadanovic v. Dep’t of Corrections, 575 So. 2d 1333, 1335 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Eventually, Appellees’ cases were consolidated by the hearing officer. Rule 33-3.0084(l)(i)l covers disciplinary confinement and states: (1) Confin…