WOOLWORTH'S RESTAURANT, AND TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
DEBRA CUBILLOS, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1992-11-10
No. 91-4022
Miner, J., Allen, J., Kahn, J.
608 So. 2d 895 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1992) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 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.

Synopsis

The court affirmed the workers' compensation award of benefits for compensable injuries but reversed and remanded the penalty award because the record did not clearly establish whether the employer/carrier timely controverted the claim.


Holding

Penalties in workers' compensation cases should not be imposed where the employer/carrier timely files a notice to controvert, and where the record is ambiguous on this point, the case must be remanded for clarification.


Headnotes

[1] Penalties in workers' compensation cases should not be imposed where the employer/carrier timely files a notice to controvert pursuant to Fla. …

Previewing 1 of 1 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

Facts & Procedural History

Debra Cubillos filed a workers' compensation claim for job-related injuries. The employer/carrier (Woolworth's Restaurant and Travelers Insurance Comp…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, the employer/carrier (e/c) challenge an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) finding claimant’s injuries compensable and awarding benefits and penalties. Competent substantial evidence supports compensability, and we affirm the JCC’s finding without further elaboration. However, the award of penalties must be reversed and remanded for further consideration in light of the following.

Penalties should not be imposed where the e/c timely file a notice to controvert. § 440.20(6) and (7), Fla.Stat. (Supp. 1990); Glades General Hospital v. Sullenger, 584 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Although the record in the instant case does not contain a notice to controvert, a portion of the JCC’s order states that “[t]his claim was totally controverted.” Because no explanation is offered, we must reverse the award of penalties and remand the case for clarification of the JCC’s order as we did in Four Quarters Habitat, Inc. v. Miller, 405 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). On remand, the JCC should state explicitly whether the e/c sufficiently controverted the claim, or, if the claim was not timely controverted, whether e/c have a valid excuse for not doing so.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED for reconsideration.

MINER, ALLEN and KAHN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Fla. Power Corp. v. Hamilton, 657 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
    …tal disability benefits filed July 13, 1992.2 The failure to file a timely notice to controvert a claim for a certain class of benefits may subject an employer or carrier to penalties. § 440.20(6), Fla.Stat. (1987); Woolworth Restaurant v. Cubillos, 608 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). While the employer in this case does not dispute that temporary total disability benefits were claimed, the only record documentation of such claim is in the application for hearing and pretrial stipulation. The application and…
  • …er, was made a part of the record on appeal. The briefs of the parties are unclear as to this matter. We are also unable to determine if the parties were on notice that the issue of penalties was to be tried. In Woolworth’s Restaurant v. Cubillos, 608 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), we reversed and remanded for further clarification of an award of penalties where it was not clear whether the E/C had timely filed a notice to controvert. See also Perkins Restaurant v. Cruz, 541 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw