UPJOHN HOME HEALTH CARE SERVICES AND AETNA LIFE & CASUALTY, APPELLANTS,
v.
PAULINE COVINGTON, 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 the finding of compensability must be reversed because the parties did not present medical testimony on the issue.
Appellants appealed a non-final order from a Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) that rejected the statute of limitations defense, found a compensable …
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 Non-Final Order Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We are asked to review a non-final order entered by a Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC), which rejected appellants’ contention that the statute of limitations bars appellee’s claim, determined that appellee sustained a compensable injury, and awarded attorney’s fees. Because the order is not final, we limit our review to the JCC’s finding of compensability and decide no other question. See generally Hines Electric v. McClure, 616 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Fla.R.Work.Comp.P. 4.160(b)(3); Fla. RApp.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv).
At a hearing on May 29, 1992, the JCC delineated the issues by announcing, “The parties have graciously agreed that we would try only the question of the statute of limitations today.” R. 1. The JCC’s order, entered December 23,1992, not only decided the statute of limitations question, but also went on to find a compensable injury, deferring an actual award of benefits pending a determination of disability, and ordered attorney’s fees.
The parties are entitled to notice and an opportunity to present evidence on the issue of compensability. Neither the employee, the employer, nor the carrier adduced medical testimony at the hearing. Accordingly, we reverse the finding of compensability and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BARFIELD, WOLF and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Consultants & Designers & Cigna Cos. v. Brown, 677 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…cates ... [cjompensability of accidents or occupational diseases.” Notwithstanding the use of the word “order” when addressing what is reviewable, just as is the ease with regard to the present rule, in Upjohn Home Health Care Services v. Covington, 634 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), we held that review of nonfinal orders pursuant to that rule was limited to the ruling on the issue of compensability, and that no other issues would be considered. It is apparent from that opinion that the holding was based in…
Authorities Cited
- Hines Elec. & Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. McCLURE, 616 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)