WAL-MART STORES, INC. AND CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
SANDRA LOPEZ, 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.
Wal-Mart Stores and Claims Management appealed a workers' compensation order awarding the claimant temporary total disability, temporary partial disability, and permanent total disability benefits. The appellate court affirmed the award, holding that the employer/carrier failed to preserve its argument that the total disability benefits exceeded the statutory 104-week maximum by not raising the issue before the trial court.
The court affirmed the disability benefits award in all respects because the employer/carrier failed to preserve the issue for appellate review by not raising it before the trial court. Even assuming the benefits exceeded the statutory maximum, the error constitutes a readily correctable technical error that should have been addressed through a motion for rehearing, not on appeal.
[1] An appellate court will not reverse a workers' compensation award for a readily correctable technical error that the Judge of Compensation Claims was not asked to correct…
[2] Failure to raise an issue before the Judge of Compensation Claims, including potential statutory maximums for disability benefits, waives the right to appellate review.
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“in workers' compensation appeals, ... we will not reverse for a readily correctable technical error that the [JCC] was not asked to correct within the time available for correction.”
Establishes the principle that technical errors not brought to the trial court's attention cannot be grounds for reversal on appeal
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant received awards of temporary total disability benefits and temporary partial disability benefits totaling 108 weeks. The employer/carrier…
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 Permanent Total Disability Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this worker’s compensation appeal, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Claims Management, Inc. (jointly the employer/carrier), appeal an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) determining claimant’s entitlement to temporary total disability benefits, temporary partial disability benefits, and permanent total disability benefits. We affirm the order in all respects. We write to address the argument of the employer/earrier that the JCC improperly awarded disability benefits for a total of 108 weeks, exceeding the 104 week maximum allowed by statute. Even if the awards of temporary total disability benefits and temporary partial disability benefits exceed the total of 104 weeks allowed by section 440.15(2)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994) and section 440.15(4)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), this error was not preserved for appellate review by the employer/earrier. The question of whether the length of disability benefits exceeded that allowed by statute was not raised before the JCC. Even if the employer/carrier is correct in its assertion about the length of awarded disability benefits, it is apparent to us that this issue involves a technical error that was readily correctable by a motion for rehearing. See rule 4.141, Florida Rules of Workers’ Compensation Procedure. This court explained in Sunland Hosp./State of Florida v. Garrett, 415 So. 2d 783, 785 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), that:
[I]n workers’ compensation appeals, ... we will not reverse for a readily correctable technical error that the [JCC] was not asked to correct within the time available for correction.
(Citations omitted); see also Acosta Roofing Co. v. Gillyard, 402 So. 2d 1321, 1322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Albertson’s, Inc. v. Natale, 555 So. 2d 946, 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Aircraft Servs. v. Reyes, 582 So. 2d 66, 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Accordingly, we decline to disturb this award.
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, BOOTH and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hamilton v. R.L. Best Int'l & Protegrity Servs., Inc., 996 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…the final order, the aggrieved party must bring it to the judge’s attention by filing a motion for rehearing. We have often applied this rule to technical errors that could easily be corrected on rehearing. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lopez, [*235] 742 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). However, the underlying principle has been applied, as well, to a substantive error that was not brought to the judge’s attention prior to filing the appeal. See Sunland Hosp. (declining to consider an issue of compensability on…
-
Deana B. Jellison v. Dixie S. Indus., Inc., 857 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…larly if there is any opportunity to do so, such as in this case, an objection concerning the content of the proposed final order or the procedure being utilized should have first [*367] been presented to the JCC. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lopez, 742 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Fla. Refrigerated Serv. v. Meeks, 470 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Appellant argues that there was no opportunity to object. We find this argument without merit. A motion addressed to the timely issuance of an order or a wri…
-
Nazar Kaloustian v. Tampa Armature Works, Inc., 5 So. 3d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…ed frivolously. Likewise, the JCC made no such findings in either of her orders. Significantly, the E/C did not attempt to correct the purported scrivener’s error by filing a motion for rehearing or clarification. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lopez, 742 So. 2d 301, 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (holding this court will not reverse a JCC’s order for a readily correctable technical error that the JCC was not asked to correct within the time available for correction). Consequently, to the extent, if any, the JCC erre…
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
- Sunland Hospital/State OF Florida v. Garrett, 415 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Acosta Roofing Co. & Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Gussie Gillyard, 402 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Smith v. State, 555 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Aircraft Servs. & Helmsman Mgmt. Servs. v. Reyes, 582 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)