MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, APPELLANT,
v.
NESTOR FONKEN, 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.
An order from a judge of compensation claims approving a mediation agreement for an independent medical examination is not a final compensation order that must be enforced by a circuit court.
Miami-Dade County appealed a circuit court order enforcing a judge of compensation claims' order approving a mediation agreement for an independent me…
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 Mediation Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
WELLS, Judge.
Miami-Dade County appeals from a circuit court order granting a rule nisi. That order enforces an order from a judge of compensation claims approving a mediation agreement for an independent medical examination (IME) for Appellee, Nelson Fonken. We reverse.
As we confirmed in De La Pena v. Sunshine Bouquet Co., 870 So. 2d 880, 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), an order from a judge of compensation claims granting an IME is not a final compensation order that must be enforced by a circuit court:
The circuit court has jurisdiction to enforce a final compensation order of a judge of compensation claims. § 440.24(1), Fla. Stat. (1998); North Shore Med. Ctr. v. Capua, 634 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). However, interlocutory orders, such as the one at issue here, are matters which properly belong before the judge of compensation claims who has the power to enforce his or her own interlocutory orders. § 440.33, Fla. Stat. (1998).
See North Shore Med. Ctr. v. Capua, 634 So. 2d 1141, 1143 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (finding that where underlying workers’ compensation case was still pending before judge of compensation claims, the circuit court had no jurisdiction to enforce an order that did not award specific compensation but merely approved a stipulation between parties in which parties agreed to attempt to resolve all pending issues and retained jurisdiction in the event parties were unable to do so).
For purposes of enforcement, we see no distinction between an order of a judge of compensation claims granting an IME, which may be enforced by the compensation claims judge, and an order of a compensation claims judge approving a mediation agreement granting an IME. Neither is an order that must be enforced by a circuit court.
The order granting Fonken’s petition for rule nisi is, therefore, reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
King v. Parker Hannifin Corp. & Underwriters, Inc., 17 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…cause the underlying workers’ compensation claim remained open and active with numerous unresolved issues and at least one pending PFB. The Employer/Carrier relies on two Third District cases to support its argument. See Miami-Dade County v. Fonken, 886 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); De La Pena v. Sunshine Bouquet Co., 870 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). In Mabire, the JCC entered an order requiring the insurance carrier to build and maintain a heated exercise pool to treat the claimant’s injury. 946 So. 2d a…
Authorities Cited
- N. Shore Med. Ctr. & Totura & Co. v. The Honorable S. Peter Capua, 634 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Wiggins v. Dawson, 870 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)