ESI AND RISCORP, APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES A. TAYLOR, 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.
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of a workers' compensation order that reserves jurisdiction on a claim for attendant care.
Appellants appealed a workers' compensation order that resolved an employment issue, removed an employer/carrier, awarded benefits, but reserved juris…
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 Certiorari Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellants have filed an appeal of a workers’ compensation order which resolves an employment issue so as to remove another employer/carrier from the case. The order awards various benefits but reserves jurisdiction as to a claim for attendant care, describing the issue as “unripe” because of a need for additional testimony.
This is an improper appeal of an interlocutory order which reserves jurisdiction as to the claim for attendant care. See Industrial Steel v. Robinson, 444 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The claim was not “unripe” merely because the judge desired further evidence, and this case does not involve the due process concerns identified in Winkel v. Grand Union Stores, 436 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). This court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of an interlocutory workers’ compensation order. See United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Sloan, 410 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
The appellants have not demonstrated a basis for review by certiorari. This case is unlike Doll House, Inc. v. Porter, 436 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), where one party was removed from the case and jurisdiction was reserved for additional hearings “as necessary.” The decision in Porter does not reflect any further pending dispute between the remaining parties, unlike the present case in which the attendant care issue was submitted to the judge and is still unresolved. The appellants have not shown that the remedy available upon review after a final order would be inadequate, and we therefore decline to undertake interlocutory review by certiorari.
The appellants having failed to demonstrate a proper basis for interlocutory review, this case is hereby dismissed.
ZEHMER, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bradley v. The Hurricane Rest. & Associated Indus. of Fla. Prop. & Cas. Tr., 652 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…lm Beach v. Watts, 426 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). This statutory limitation is to be distinguished from the continuation of proceedings for updated medical information that occurred in Watts or the reservation of adjudication in ESI v. Taylor, 588 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Since the order in the instant case found a bona fide emergency within the meaning of subsection 440.25(4)(h) to exist and awarded in part and denied in part certain benefits, it is a final order subject to appellate review in t…
-
Hines Elec. & Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. McCLURE, 616 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…st DCA 1992); Mills Elec. Contractors v. Mar-thens, 417 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 429 So. 2d 6 (Fla.1983).6 Any order which did not resolve all issues ripe for adjudication was considered nonfinal and nonappealable. ESI v. Taylor, 588 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); American Boom & Barrier, Inc. v. Stewart, 592 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Review of nonfinal orders in compensation cases could only be sought by a petition for writ of certiorari. Lockheed Space Operations, supra. In order…
-
Nape v. Mark V Constr., 696 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…ence was in fact adduced on this claim at a subsequent hearing before the judge of compensation claims. When the order we are asked to review was entered, the “claim was not ‘unripe’ merely because the judge desired further evidence.” ESI v. Taylor, 588 So. 2d 1017, 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Yet the order on appeal did not finally dispose of the claim. We are not unaware that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.180(c)(1) provides that the judge of compensation claims retains jurisdiction to decide the issu…
Authorities Cited
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Sloan, 410 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Indus. Steel & CNA Ins. Grp. v. Robinson, 444 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Winkel v. Grand Union Stores & Crawford & Co., 436 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- The Doll House, Inc. v. Porter, 436 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)