COMMERCIAL CARRIER CORP., APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN JOHNSON, 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.
Commercial Carrier Corp. appealed a workers' compensation judge's order awarding increased average weekly wage benefits and penalties. The Florida appellate court reversed the wage increase and penalty award, finding that the wage increase claim had been withdrawn by stipulation and that the penalties lacked supporting findings of fact or conclusions of law.
The court held that the judge erred in both respects. An award for a claim withdrawn by stipulation of the parties violates the requirement that a claim identify the matters to be litigated and the prohibition against awarding benefits beyond the scope of the hearing. Additionally, an order imposing penalties must set forth findings of fact or conclusions of law supporting such penalties.
[1] An award for a claim withdrawn by stipulation of the parties is improper.
[2] A judge of compensation claims errs in awarding penalties without accompanying findings of fact or conclusions of law.
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Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An award for a claim which has been withdrawn by stipulation of the parties neither comports with the general requirement that a claim must identify the matters to be litigated nor comports with the prohibition against awarding benefits which are beyond the scope of the hearing.”
Establishes that judges cannot award benefits for claims withdrawn by agreement of both parties
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe employee John Johnson suffered an industrial accident on February 16, 1989. During the benefits hearing, both parties specifically and unequivocal…
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 Scope Of Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, Judge.
The employer/carrier (E/C) challenges the order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC) awarding benefits, as well as interest and penalties for past-due benefits. Appellant raises four issues on appeal, only two of which have merit and will be discussed here. Appellant asserts that (1) it was error to order an increase in average weekly wage when the claim for such an increase had been withdrawn from consideration as a result of an agreement between the parties, and (2) it was error to award penalties without accompanying findings of fact or conclusions of law in support of such award. We agree and, therefore, reverse the increase in average weekly wage and award of penalties, and remand for further consideration of the award of penalties.
Appellant suffered an industrial accident on February 16, 1989. During the benefits hearing, the parties specifically and unequivocally agreed to withdraw the request for determination of a higher average weekly wage. After the hearing, the JCC entered an order which included an increase in the average weekly wage, and obligated the E/C to pay penalties on past-due benefits without any accompanying findings of fact or conclusions of law. An award for a claim which has been withdrawn by stipulation of the parties neither comports with the general requirement that a claim must identify the matters to be litigated nor comports with the prohibition against awarding benefits which are beyond the scope of the hearing. See Kaplan Indus., Inc. v. Rowlett, 565 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The JCC, therefore, erred in ruling on the issue of an increase in average weekly wage.
Appellant’s second claim is similarly correct, in that the JCC erred in awarding penalties against the E/C without stating the ultimate facts upon which such penalties are based. It is well established that an order must set forth the findings of fact or conclusions of law that support the imposition of penalties. See, e.g., Davis v. Broward County Health Dep’t, 570 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
The determination of a higher average weekly wage is reversed, and the order is remanded with instructions to make factual determinations or conclusions of law concerning the imposition of a penalty. In all other respects, the JCC’s order is affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
ZEHMER and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kaplan Indus., Inc. v. Rowlett, 565 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Earnese Davis v. Broward Cnty. Health Dep't, 570 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)