SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES AND ALBERTSON'S, APPELLANTS,
v.
JUDY FLEMING, 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 the Judge of Compensation Claims erred in awarding benefits not placed at issue.
The employer and carrier appealed an order authorizing evaluation and treatment, including prescriptions for massage therapy and certain medications. …
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 Opportunity To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The employer and carrier appeal an order that authorizes evaluation and treatment with a family practice physician. The appellants contend, among other things, that the order erroneously awards prescriptions for massage therapy and certain medications, since these benefits were not properly before the Judge of Compensation Claims. We agree with this argument.
Due process precludes a ruling on matters which have not been placed at issue, as the parties are entitled to notice in order to fairly present their case. See Commercial Carrier Corp. v. LaPointe, 723 So. 2d 912, 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Lakeside Baptist Church v. Jones, 714 So. 2d 1188, 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). If the Judge of Compensation Claims awards benefits that are not requested or otherwise clearly placed at issue, the award must be reversed. LaPointe, 723 So. 2d at 915.
In the present case, massage therapy and prescription benefits were not requested in the April 24, 2002, and May 29, 2002, petitions for benefits. They were not listed on the pretrial stipulation, nor were they clearly placed at issue during the hearing or tried by consent. Therefore, the portion of the order that awards these benefits is reversed. The order is affirmed in all other respects.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
ALLEN, PADOVANO and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clay Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners/Scibal Assocs. v. Bramlitt, 61 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…determination of the issue is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Due process bars a ruling on matters not at issue because the parties are entitled to notice in order to fairly present their case. See Specialty Risk Servs. v. Fleming, 875 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Commercial Carrier Corp. v. LaPointe, 723 So. 2d 912, 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Lakeside Baptist Church v. Jones, 714 So. 2d 1188, 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part. BENTON, C.J., and PADOVANO, J.,…
Authorities Cited
- Commercial Carrier Corp. & Comcar Indus., Inc. v. LaPOINTE, 723 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Lakeside Baptist Church & Preferred Risk Grp. v. Jones, 714 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)