CITY OF OPA LOCKA AND THEIR CARRIER, UNISOURCE, APPELLANT,
v.
ALONSO WILLIAMS, 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 First District Court of Appeal reversed a Judge of Compensation Claims' ruling that an employer/servicing agent waived its right to amend a pre-trial stipulation and assert defenses in a workers' compensation case. The court held that failure to respond to a petition for benefits does not constitute a waiver of defenses, and that denying the amendment motion was an abuse of discretion given the contractual right to amend within 30 days of final hearing.
The employer/servicing agent did not waive its defenses by failing to respond to the petition for benefits; any failure to respond constitutes only a denial of allegations, not a waiver of defenses. The JCC abused his discretion by denying the amendment motion, particularly where the pre-trial stipulation expressly permitted amendment up to 30 days before final hearing and the motion was filed well within that timeframe. The $2,000 advance payment award must be reconsidered on remand as it was based in part on the erroneous waiver ruling.
[1] A failure to respond to a petition for benefits may not be considered a waiver of defenses, but only a denial of the petition's allegations.
[2] A Judge of Compensation Claims abuses discretion by imposing an extreme sanction for failure to comply with pre-trial instructions when less severe sanctions are availabl…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“any failure to respond to the petition for benefits (PFB) may not be considered as a waiver of the E/SA's defenses to the claims in the PFB, but only as a denial of the allegations in the PFB”
Establishes the key legal principle that non-response does not waive substantive defenses in workers' compensation proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Opa Locka and its carrier Unisource failed to timely respond to a petition for benefits filed by claimant Alonso Williams. The employer/se…
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 Worker'S Compensation Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
[*866] BARFIELD, J.
We reverse the ruling of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) that the employer/servicing agent (E/SA) waived their right to amend the pre-trial stipulation to assert defenses and to list witnesses and exhibits, on both of the grounds outlined in his final order awarding the claimant benefits. We find that the E/SA did not invoke the “pay-and-investigate” provision of section 440.20(4), and that any failure to respond to the petition for benefits (PFB) may not be considered as a waiver of the E/SA’s defenses to the claims in the PFB, but only as a denial of the allegations in the PFB. See Bussey v. Wal-Mart Store # 725, 867 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), and the cases discussed therein. To the extent the JCC’s ruling may be characterized as a sanction for the E/SA’s failures to comply with pre-trial instructions from the JCC, we find that he abused his discretion by imposing this extreme sanction under the circumstances presented in this case. See Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla.1994); Hanna v. Industrial Labor Service, Inc., 636 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Kelley v. Schmidt, 613 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
Furthermore, we note that, consistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Q-6.113(4), the original pre-trial stipulation which was signed by the parties and approved by the JCC included the stipulation, “Either party may amend this pretrial without leave of court up to 30 days prior to final hearing.” We find that, in light of the fact that the E/SA filed the motion to amend the pre-trial stipulation more than 30 days before the scheduled final hearing, the JCC abused his discretion in denying the motion.
The amended final order is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the JCC for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Because the JCC’s award of a $2,000 advance payment of indemnity benefits appears to have been based in part on his erroneous ruling that the E/SA had waived their rights to assert defenses and present evidence, we direct the JCC to reconsider that award on remand. We find that the JCC properly admitted into evidence the deposition testimony of Dr. Sandoval, but we direct the JCC to reconsider this testimony in light of any other expert witness testimony or other evidence presented on remand.
ERVIN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.G. v. Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs., 913 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…n-existent, was clearly error, see Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla.1981); Taylor v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., - So. 2d -, 2005 WL 2990900 (Fla. 3d DCA Case no. 3D04-2259, opinion filed, Nov. 9, 2005); City of Opa Locka v. Williams, 910 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Progressive Consumers Ins. Co. v. Deco Natural Stone, Inc., 827 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); B.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 711 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); cf. S.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 784 So. 2d 47…
Authorities Cited
- Carolann D. Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993)
- Kelley v. Schmidt, 613 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Cyril Hanna v. Indus. Labor Serv., Inc., 636 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Bussey v. Wal-Mart Store # 725 & Integrated Administrators, 867 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Tareyan Cooks v. State, 867 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)