MOTOROLA, INC. AND SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
ROGER BRADSHAW, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2001-10-30
No. 1D01-707
BOOTH, BARFIELD and MINER, JJ., CONCUR.
798 So. 2d 819 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2001)

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.


Holding

The court held that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) failed to make findings in accordance with the relevant statute regarding timely notice of injury.


Facts & Procedural History

A claimant failed to provide timely notice of an accident and injuries to his employer. The JCC determined the notice was timely or excused, but did n…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to Fla. R.App.' P. 9.180(b)(1)(C), we review the nonfinal order issued below in which the Judge of Compensation Claims determined that claimant gave timely notice of his accident and injuries and was entitled to receive benefits. We agree with the employer/ear-rier that the order must be reversed.

Under section 440.185(1), Florida Statutes (1995), an employee must notify the employer of an injury suffered within the course and scope of employment “within 30 days after the date of or initial manifestation of the injury.” A claimant’s failure timely to notify the employer results in a bar to any petition for benefits unless one of the four statutory exceptions applies. § 440.185(1), Fla. Stat. In the instant case, although the JCC found claimant’s untimely notice was excused, she did not address the provisions of this statute. Appellee claimant suggests that paragraphs (b) and (d) of the section 440.185(1) apply here. Based on the findings made by the JCC, however, we are unable to determine whether the JCC applied this statute.1 Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the JCC to make findings in accordance with section 440.185(1). See Clay County School Bd. v. Robison, 725 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); GTE v. Hall, 677 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

BOOTH, BARFIELD and MINER, JJ., CONCUR. . We note that the JCC’s finding that claimant was not aware that his injuries arose from the automobile accident is not supported by any record evidence.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw