GUARANTEE MUTUAL LIFE COMPANY AND STATE CLAIMS ADJUSTERS, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN MCCARTNEY AND M.C. DISTRIBUTORS OF ALABAMA, INC., APPELLEES
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.
Guarantee Mutual Life Company and State Claims Adjusters appealed a workers' compensation judge's order awarding benefits, arguing they were not properly noticed of the final hearing. The court affirmed, holding that actual notice received from the employer satisfied statutory requirements and obligated the carrier to appear.
The court held that the carrier/servicing agent had an obligation to appear at the final hearing because the Judge of Compensation Claims had jurisdiction over them and they received actual notice of the final hearing from the employer, regardless of whether notice came directly from the judge.
[1] A workers' compensation carrier or its servicing agent, having received actual notice of a final hearing from the employer, has an obligation to appear at the hearing to…
[2] Arguments not raised before the Judge of Compensation Claims are not preserved for appellate review.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Because the JCC had jurisdiction over the earrier/servicing agent and the carrier/servicing agent received actual notice of the final hearing from the employer, we hold that the earrier/servicing agent had an obligation to appear at the final hearing to raise their arguments before the JCC.”
Establishes the core holding that actual notice from the employer was sufficient to obligate appearance regardless of direct notice from the judge
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGuarantee Mutual Life Company issued a workers' compensation policy to an employer. State Claims Adjusters, Inc. served as the servicing agent for the…
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 Notice Of Final Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
Guarantee Mutual Life Company and State Claims Adjusters, Inc. (“carrier/servicing agent”) appeal an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”), which determined that the workers’ compensation policy issued by the carrier provided coverage for the claimant’s accident, and awarded benefits. The carrier/servicing agent raise six issues on appeal. Because the carrier/servicing agent failed to appear at the final hearing to raise the arguments they now raise on appeal after having received actual notice of the final hearing from the employer, we affirm.
The carrier/servicing agent conceded at oral argument that the JCC had jurisdiction over them because the JCC had jurisdiction over the employer.1 The carrier/servicing agent argue, however, that they were not required to make an appearance at the final hearing because they did not receive notice of the final hearing directly from the JCC in accordance with section 440.25(4)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). This section provides: “The judge of compensation claims shall give the interested parties at least 7 days’ advance notice of the final hearing, served upon the interested parties by mail.”
In the present ease, the attorney for the employer telefaxed and mailed a copy of the JCC’s notice of the final hearing scheduled on February 20, 1995, to the servicing agent on January 12, 1995. Because the servicing agent is an agent for the carrier, the notice of the final hearing provided to the servicing agent was also notice to the carrier. The earrier/servicing agent did not raise an objection to their failure to receive the notice of final hearing directly from the JCC before the final hearing, nor did they attend the final hearing.
Because the JCC had jurisdiction over the earrier/servicing agent and the carrier/servicing agent received actual notice of the final hearing from the employer, we hold that the earrier/servicing agent had an obligation to appear at the final hearing to raise their arguments before the JCC. Because the earrier/servicing agent failed to raise the arguments they now raise on appeal before the JCC, their arguments have not been preserved for appellate review.
Accordingly, the order of the JCC is AFFIRMED.
ZEHMER, C.J., and ALLEN, J., concur. . Section 440.41(2), Florida Statutes (1993), provides: "Jurisdiction of the employer by the judges of compensation claims, the division, or any court under this chapter shall be jurisdiction of the carrier.”