FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FRED HAMILTON, 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.
Florida Power Corporation appeals a workers' compensation order awarding temporary total disability benefits to an employee. The court reverses the award because the claimant never specifically requested temporary total disability benefits and the matter was not properly placed at issue during the hearing.
The court holds that temporary total disability benefits cannot be awarded when they were neither claimed nor otherwise placed at issue. Due process requires that parties receive notice of the specific benefits being requested so they may fairly present their case. A claim for one class of benefits does not permit an award of a different class of benefits.
[1] A workers' compensation award for a specific class of benefits is improper when that class of benefits was neither requested nor otherwise clearly placed at issue.
[2] Due process requires that parties have notice of the issues to be decided so they may fairly present their case.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Due process concerns preclude a ruling on matters which have not been placed at issue, as the parties are entitled to notice so that they may fairly present their case.”
Establishes the fundamental due process requirement that parties receive notice of the specific benefits being claimed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant filed claims for permanent total disability or wage loss benefits, with parties stipulating the claimant had reached maximum medical impr…
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 Reservation Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, Judge.
The employer appeals a workers’ compensation order by which the claimant was awarded temporary total disability benefits. Because the claimant did not specifically request this class of benefits, and the matter was not otherwise clearly placed at issue, we reverse the award. Claims were filed for permanent total disability or wage loss benefits, with the parties stipulating that the claimant had attained maximum medical improvement. The claimant did not appear at a hearing where medical and vocational evidence was presented. The judge noted that he was thus unable to directly evaluate the claimant’s subjective complaints and credibility. Finding the medical evidence of disability to be insufficient, the judge determined that an additional medical opinion should be obtained as to certain questions including the advisability of further surgical intervention. The judge therefore ordered an additional examination and evaluation, while reserving jurisdiction as to “all issues presented.”
The examining doctor prepared a report and was deposed by the parties. These documents were received as the court’s exhibit, and the parties declined to present other evidence. The judge then entered the appealed order, accepting the examining doctor’s recommendation for further evaluation and possible surgery. Rejecting the parties' stipulation as to maximum medical improvement, the judge determined that the claimant remains temporarily totally disabled, and awarded such benefits.
The judge was entitled to reject the stipulation as to maximum medical improvement upon the receipt of contrary evidence. See Leeds Shoes v. Cucuzza, 429 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). But neither this circumstance nor the reservation of jurisdiction in connection with the additional medical examination expanded the scope of the hearing. Leeds Shoes; see also Allman v. Meredith Corp., 451 So. 2d 957, 959 n. 1, (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Although a matter may be placed at issue by the presentation of evidence specifically directed to the dispute, see Dailey v. General Accounting Machs., 411 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the evidence in the present case was not such as to necessarily expand the scope of the hearing.
Due process concerns preclude a ruling on matters which have not been placed at issue, as the parties are entitled to notice so that they may fairly present their case. See generally Austin Co. v. Lindenberger, 410 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Albertson’s Southco v. Williams, 402 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); see also Kaplan Industr. v. Rowlett, 565 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). These cases indicate that it is thus usually necessary that a claim identify the specific benefit being requested. See also United States Steel Corp. v. Green, 353 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1977).
In Leeds Shoes this court determined that a claim for permanent disability benefits would not permit a temporary total award. It has likewise been indicated in various other cases that a claim for one class of benefits will not permit an award of another class of benefits. See, e.g., United States Steel; Albertson’s. The contrary rule which is sometimes applied in reliance on Farm Stores v. Dyrda, 384 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), is not applicable in the present case. Farm Stores involved an earlier specific request which remained pending as to the class of benefits ultimately awarded, and the present case does not involve this circumstance. Leeds Shoes is directly controlling authority precluding an award of temporary total benefits which were neither claimed nor otherwise placed at issue. See also Florida Production Engineering v. Fisher, IRC Order 2-3437 (May 19, 1978).
The award of temporary total disability benefits is reversed.
WIGGINTON and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Se. Recycling & Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Cottongim, 639 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…Campen, 390 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Due process concerns preclude a ruling on matters which have not been placed at issue, since the parties are entitled to notice so that they may fairly present their case. Florida Power Corp. v. Hamilton, 617 So. 2d 333, 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). An order that is not in accord with the understanding with which the workers’ compensation hearing was undertaken and participated in is a denial of due process and must be reversed. Munroe Memorial Hospital v. Thompson, 38…
-
Commercial Carrier Corp. & Comcar Indus., Inc. v. LaPOINTE, 723 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…y consent of the parties.2 As to each class of benefits, “[b]e-cause the claimant did not specifically request this class of benefits, and the matter was not otherwise clearly placed at issue, we reverse the award.” Florida Power Corp. v. Hamilton, 617 So. 2d 333, 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). See also Lakeside Baptist Church v. Jones, 714 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). An order that is not in accord with the understanding with which the workers’ compensation hearing was undertaken and participated in is a den…
-
Town OF Jupiter & McCreary Corp. v. Andreff, 656 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…e that a hearing may be scheduled without any notice to the parties. Due process requires notice, but it does not require written notice. See Southeast Recycling v. Cottongim, 639 So. 2d 155, 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Florida Power Corp. v. Hamilton, 617 So. 2d 333, 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Munroe Mem. Hosp. v. Thompson, 388 So. 2d 1338, 1339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Accordingly, given the purpose of the statute, it requires reasonable notice based on all the circumstances. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Allman v. Meredith Corp. & Md. Cas. Co., 451 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Farm Stores & Emp'rs Ins. of Wausau v. Dyrda, 384 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Farrar v. Ewell Eng'g & Contracting Co., 353 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1977)
- Kaplan Indus., Inc. v. Rowlett, 565 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- The Austin Co. & Gen. Accident Grp. v. Lindenberger, 410 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Leeds Shoes & Monarch Ins. Co. v. Cucuzza, 429 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Albertson's Southco & Diversified Risk Mgmt. Servs. v. Williams, 402 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Dailey v. General Accounting MacHines, 411 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)