JOHN REYNOLDS, APPELLANT,
v.
SKAGFIELD CORP., D/B/A SKANDIA LIBERTY MUTUAL, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2004-11-23
No. 1D03-3112
KAHN, WEBSTER and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
887 So. 2d 434 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2004) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Temporary Partial Disability Benefits Competent Substantial Evidence Attorney'S Fees

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Temporary Partial Disability Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

[*435] PER CURIAM.

Claimant John Reynolds appeals the order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC), arguing that the JCC erred in determining the compensability of claimant’s back condition and that there was no competent substantial evidence to support the JCC’s determination that the Claimant was not entitled to temporary partial disability benefits and attorney’s fees. We agree, and the employer/carrier concede, that the JCC improperly determined the compensability of claimant’s back condition because the issue was not before the JCC. See S.E. Recycling v. Cottongim, 639 So. 2d 155, 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). We, therefore, reverse the JCC’s order as to this finding. We affirm the JCC’s order in all other respects without further comment.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.

KAHN, WEBSTER and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Farnam v. U.S. Sugar Corp. & Gallagher Bassett, 9 So. 3d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
    …ripe for adjudication, and the petition for benefits based upon repetitive trauma was not before her. Consequently, the JCC erred in addressing whether repetitive trauma caused, to any degree, the low back condition. See Reynolds v. Skagfield Corp., 887 So. 2d 434, 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (holding “the JCC improperly determined the compensability of claimant’s back condition because the issue was not before the JCC”). Because the JCC erred in addressing the repetitive trauma claim, she erred in denying the…
  • Simeon Salinas v. C.A.T. Concrete, LLC, 46 So. 3d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
    …icipated in is a denial of due process and must be reversed. Munroe Memorial Hospital v. Thompson, 388 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Southeast Recycling v. Cottongim, 639 So. 2d 155, 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); see also Reynolds v. Skagfield Corp., 887 So. 2d 434, 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (holding that a JCC improperly determines compensability of a condition when the issue is not before the JCC); Commercial Carrier Corp. v. LaPointe, 723 So. 2d 912, 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding that JCC erred in awarding…
  • Booher v. Perkins Rest. & Bakery/Risk Mgmt. Ltd., 11 So. 3d 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
    …in part, that the major contributing cause (MCC) of her need for surgery was not the workplace accident. We reverse and remand this case for further proceedings. A JCC errs in determining an issue not before him. E.g., Reynolds v. Skagfield Corp., 887 So. 2d 434, 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Claims that have not gone through the mediation process are not ripe for adjudication. Farnam v. U.S. Sugar Corp., 9 So. 3d 41, 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). A JCC errs by addressing claims that are not ripe. Id. Here, the MCC…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw