NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY C/O CRUM & FORSTER AND M.F. HINOTE & SON, APPELLANTS,
v.
WAYNE WUELLING, 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 an order awarding medical benefits, interest, and costs, which also determined entitlement to attorney's fees but reserved jurisdiction to set the amount, is a final appealable order.
[1] An order awarding medical benefits, interest, and costs, and determining entitlement to attorney's fees while reserving jurisdiction to set the amount of the fee, is a fi…
[2] An order determining entitlement to attorney's fees but reserving jurisdiction to set the amount is distinguishable from an order awarding compensation benefits and deter…
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 intelligenceThe claimant sought medical benefits, and the Judge of Compensation Claims ruled the claim was not time-barred, ordering payment of medical expenses, …
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 Attorney'S Fees In Workers' Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
Appellee (claimant below) moves to dismiss this appeal of an order awarding medical benefits, interest and costs, as well as determining the claimant’s entitlement to attorney’s fees, but reserving jurisdiction to set the amount of the fee.
Appellee asserts that the order of the Judge of Compensation Claims is neither a final order nor an appeal-able non-final order, under Wometco Enterprises v. Cordoves, 650 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
In Wometco this court dismissed an appeal of an order determining entitlement to an award of attorney’s fees but reserving jurisdiction to set the amount. Wometco does not require dismissal under the circumstances shown here, therefore we deny the motion to dismiss. In the order under review, the judge ruled that the claimant’s petition for benefits was not barred by the statute of limitations. He ordered the employer/carrier (e/c) to pay claimant’s medical expenses, interest on all past due benefits and to reimburse the claimant for his taxable costs. The order also found that the claimant’s attorney was entitled to a reasonable fee to be paid by the e/c, but reserved jurisdiction to set the amount.
Claimant has moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that because of the reservation of jurisdiction solely to determine the amount of the attorney fee, the order was neither a final order nor an appealable non-final order authorized by Florida Rule of Workers’ Compensation Procedure 4.160(b). The claimant relies upon Wometco Enterprises v. Cor-doves, 650 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). In Wometco, the issue was whether an order finding entitlement to attorney’s fees, but reserving jurisdiction to set the amount, was a final appealable order. That order is distinguishable from the order in this case, which awarded compensation benefits to the claimant, as well as determining entitlement to attorney’s fees. This order is a final appealable order.
Accordingly, the order under review is a final appealable order. The motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED.
BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Commercial Carrier Corp. & Comcar Indus., Inc. v. LaPOINTE, 723 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…o. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Hunt v. Hunt, 648 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). But reservation of jurisdiction to decide questions concerning attorney’s fees does not render the order in the main case nonfinal. See North River Ins. Co. v. Wuelling, 674 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). . This was more than just a technical error. See Village Inn Restaurant v. Aridi, 543 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). We reject the claimant’s contention that because the E/C did not object to future medical benefits the issue…
-
Mellon Sec. & Sound & PCA Solutions, Inc. v. Custer, 687 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…84 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), and Horizons Painting v. Lessard, 688 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Finally, we note that the E/C’s ruling on the claimant’s section 440.20(4) estoppel argument was incorrect, see North River Insurance Company v. Wuelling, 674 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), but that this was harmless error in that it was an alternative finding to the determination that the claimant “has met his burden of proof in establishing compensability of both the neck and back conditions.” AFFIRMED. KAHN an…
-
City OF Hollywood & Interrisk Concepts v. Lombardi, 738 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…). We decline to consider the E/SA’s fourth issue regarding entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs, because the issue is not ripe for appeal based on the JCC’s reservation of jurisdiction to determine amount. See North River Ins. Co. v. Wuelling, 674 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (on motion to dismiss); Commercial Carrier Corp. v. LaPointe, 723 So. 2d 912, 914 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Turning next to the issues raised on cross-appeal, Lombardi first argues that the JCC erred in interpreting section 440.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wometco Enters. & Cigna Ins. Co. v. Cordoves, 650 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)