MARIA CASTRO, APPELLANT,
v.
FELLSMERE MANAGEMENT AND NATIONWIDE INSURANCE 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.
Maria Castro appealed a judge of compensation claims' dismissal of her workers' compensation claim for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. The court reversed, holding that the JCC had jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim for supplemental benefits because a bona fide dispute existed regarding when claimant became entitled to such benefits, even though PTD status itself was not disputed.
The JCC had jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim because a bona fide dispute existed concerning entitlement to supplemental benefits. Where a dispute concerning entitlement to benefits exists, the JCC has full power and authority to hear such claims under Florida Statute § 440.25(1).
[1] A judge of compensation claims has jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim for supplemental benefits even if the employer/carrier accepted the claimant as permanently and tota…
[2] A judge of compensation claims has full power and authority to hear claims where there is a dispute concerning entitlement to benefits.
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“Where there is a dispute concerning entitlement to benefits, the JCC has full power and authority to hear such claims.”
Establishes the central holding that jurisdiction exists when benefits are disputed, citing § 440.25(1), Fla. Stat.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaria Castro filed a claim seeking determination of the correct date she became permanently and totally disabled and payment of supplemental benefits …
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 Jurisdiction Of Judge Of Compensation Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Maria Castro (claimant) appeals from a final order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC) dismissing the claim for benefits. The claimant asked for a determination of the correct date that claimant became permanently and totally disabled (PTD), as well as payment of supplemental benefits from the date of PTD. The JCC determined that she was without jurisdiction to adjudicate the permanent total disability claim because Fellsmere Management and Nationwide Insurance Company (E/C) accepted the claimant as PTD prior to the claim being filed. Claimant asserts that the JCC erred in dismissing the entire claim, and that she was entitled to have her claim for supplemental benefits adjudicated in accordance with Florida Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Renfroe, 568 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So. 2d 1308 (Fla.1991). We agree.1
The E/C asserts that since there was no dispute concerning claimant’s status as PTD, the JCC lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. The E/C relies on the cases Ardmore Farms v. Smith, 423 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); United Tel. Co. of Florida v. Wooten, 468 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); and Sperry Remington Office Machines v. Stelling, 383 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The E/C acknowledges, however, that there was a dispute between the parties concerning when the claimant became entitled to supplemental benefits.2 In the cases relied on by the E/C, there was no indication that a bona fide dispute concerning benefits existed. Those cases are, therefore, inapplicable. Where there is a dispute concerning entitlement to benefits, the JCC has full power and authority to hear such claims. See § 440.25(1), Fla. Stat. The JCC, therefore, erred in dismissing the claim.
Reversed and remanded with directions that the JCC consider the claim for supplemental benefits in accordance with the dictates of Renfroe, supra.
BOOTH, WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur. . It should be noted, however, that the dispute concerns entitlement for past supplemental benefits and that both parties agreed that the E/C voluntarily paid PTD benefits as well as supplemental benefits from January 1, 1990.
. The PTD date is critical in determining entitlement to supplemental benefits in accordance with Renfroe.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
BON Secours-St. Joseph Hosp. & Johns E. Co. v. Norbert A. Hughes, 847 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Castro v. Fellsmere Management, 589 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). BOOTH, BENTON and POLSTON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Ardmore Farms & Esis v. Smith, 423 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Sperry Remington Off. Machs. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stelling, 383 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Blending Hughes, III v. State, 468 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Weisfeld v. William S. Cassel, Weisman, Douglas & Cassel, P.A., 568 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Session v. State, 568 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)