RAMON NAVARRO, APPELLANT,
v.
SUGARCANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE AND PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATORS, INC., 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.
An employee receiving workers' compensation medical treatment sought enforcement of a 1991 authorization order after his employer unilaterally withdrew authorization in 1994. The court held that the circuit court has jurisdiction to enforce existing workers' compensation orders, and reversed the dismissal, leaving the modification of such orders to the judge of compensation claims.
The circuit court has jurisdiction to enforce existing workers' compensation orders. When an employee petitions the circuit court to enforce a prior compensation order, the court need only determine whether the order remains in effect and enforce it; modification of the order is within the exclusive jurisdiction of a judge of compensation claims.
[1] The circuit court has jurisdiction to enforce a workers' compensation order.
[2] A petition to enforce an existing workers' compensation order, which has not been modified, falls within the jurisdiction of the circuit court.
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“The enforcement of a workers' compensation order is within the jurisdiction of the circuit court.”
Establishes the primary holding that circuit courts have jurisdiction to enforce workers' compensation orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNavarro was injured in 1984 and underwent two shoulder surgeries with treatment from multiple physicians. In 1991, a judge of compensation claims auth…
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 Petition For Rule Nisi cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
Appellant, an employee who was receiving workers’ compensation medical treatment pursuant to a 1991 order, filed a petition for rule nisi in the circuit court after appellee employer unilaterally withdrew its authorization for medical treatment. The employer persuaded the circuit court that the court was without jurisdiction because the issue involved could only be resolved by a judge of compensation claims. We conclude that the circuit court did have jurisdiction and reverse the order of dismissal.
The employee was injured in 1984, resulting in two shoulder surgeries and treatment from several physicians. In 1990 the employer sought to end the medical treatment; however, the judge of compensation claims entered an order in 1991 authorizing treat ment from a physician and a licensed massage therapist. In March 1994 the employer wrote letters to the physician and therapist informing them that it no longer authorized their services. The employer believed it could unilaterally withdraw authorization under section 440.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), which became effective January 1, 1994. That subsection provides that:
The carrier has the right to transfer the care of an injured employee from the attending health care provider if an independent medical examination determines that the employee is not making appropriate progress in recuperation.
The enforcement of a workers’ compensation order is within the jurisdiction of the circuit court. § 440.24(1), Fla.Stat. (1993). In this proceeding to enforce the 1991 order, the only issue which should have been considered by the circuit court was whether the order was still in effect. Since it was, the court should have enforced it. Alvarez v. Kendall Assoc., 590 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), and cases cited therein. Modification of the 1991 order would be under the jurisdiction of a judge of compensation claims. § 440.28, Fla.Stat. (1993).
In reversing so that the circuit court can enforce the order, we have not made any determination as to the meaning or applicability of the statutory amendment, although we note that a different portion of the 1994 amendment has been held not to apply retroactively because it would alter substantive rights. Merritt Manor Nursing Home v. Caldwell, 20 Fla.L.Weekly D2007, — So. 2d -[1995 WL 511600] (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 31, 1995).
Reversed.
GUNTHER, C.J., and FARMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frank v. Crawford & Co., 670 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…compensation claims.” The trial court’s authority in a rule nisi proceeding is limited to inquiring wheth [*119] er the subject order is still in effect and, if it is, enforcing it. Navarro v. Sugarcane Growers Co-op. & Professional Adm’rs., Inc., 661 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Alvarez v. Kendall Assocs., 590 So. 2d 518, 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). In Alvarez, the court quoted Venne v. Kleuver, 435 So. 2d 350, 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983): “[T]he circuit court has no authority in a rule nisi proceeding to consid…
-
Staffing Concepts Int'l, Inc. v. Paul, 704 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…alid workers’ compensation order in effect and whether there was a default of that order. See Southern Bell Telephone, Inc. v. Cordell, 693 So. 2d 1012, 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Navarro v. Sugarcane Growers Cooperative and Professional Adm’rs, Inc., 661 So. 2d 946, 947 (Fla. App. 4th DCA 1995); North Shore Medical Center v. Capua, 634 So. 2d 1141, 1143 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Benedict v. Executive Risk Consultants, Inc., 616 So. 2d 525, 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Maranje v. Brinks of Florida, Inc., 610 So. 2d 1293,…
-
Ross v. Sec. Ins. Co. OF Hartford, 743 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ement to any payment before the judge of compensation claims. The trial court erred in dismissing the petition for rule nisi. See Frank v. Crawford & Co., 670 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Navarro v. Sugarcane Growers Co-op. & Prof'l Adm’rs, Inc., 661 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Metropolitan Dade County v. Rolle, 661 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Lidholm v. Aetna Life & Cas., 569 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In Frank, pursuant to the compensation judge’s order, the employer made weekly payments to…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Amparo Alvarez v. Kendall Assocs. & Cont'l Ins. Co., 590 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)