CATALINA YACHTS AND BRIDGEFIELD EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
JUDY WARREN, 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 dismissed an appeal of a workers' compensation order because the order was interlocutory, leaving the amount of temporary partial disability benefits unresolved pending submission of Employee Earnings Reports.
An order granting temporary partial disability benefits but conditioning payment on submission of Employee Earnings Reports and leaving the benefit amount unresolved is interlocutory and not presently appealable.
[1] An order granting workers' compensation benefits but conditioning payment on submission of forms and leaving the benefit amount unresolved is interlocutory and not appeal…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn employer and carrier appealed a workers' compensation order that granted temporary partial disability benefits to a claimant but stated the benefit…
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 Appealability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The employer/carrier appeal a worker’s compensation order which resolved certain issues and stated that a claim for temporary partial disability benefits was granted. However, the order further indicated that it was not shown whether the claimant had received and returned any Employee Earnings Reports. Noting that without those forms the parties might be unable to determine the amount of benefits due, the order cited Jack Feagin Electric, Inc. v. Hallmark, 894 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), and specified that the benefits “are not payable until the forms are completed by the claimant and returned to the carrier.”
The claimant’s entitlement to temporary partial disability benefits was disputed at the hearing, and the appealed order did not resolve all outstanding issues in connection with that claim. Instead, it left the amount of such benefits unresolved and potentially subject to further dispute and another hearing after submission of the referenced forms. The order is thus interlocutory and not presently appealable. Crown Hotel v. Friedman, 420 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); General Electric Co. v. Hawkins, 413 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
This appeal is therefore dismissed.
ALLEN, LEWIS, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Republic Waste Servs. v. Ricardo, 68 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…ts — but only where the forms are first sent to the employee by the claims-handling entity. See id. (stating “unless the forms are completed and returned, benefits may never be due and owing”) (emphasis supplied). See also Catalina Yachts v. Warren, 946 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). In the present case, it was error to conclude that temporary partial disability benefits were not due and owing until the claimant filed DWC-19 forms he apparently never received and may never have heard of. The current adminis…
Authorities Cited
- The Crown Hotel & Kent Ins. Co. v. Friedman, 420 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Gen. Elec. Co. & Elec. Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Hawkins, 413 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Cast Crete Corp. & R. P. Hewitt & Assocs. v. Turner, 413 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Jack Feagin Elec., Inc. v. Hallmark, 894 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)