U.S. FOUNDRY & MANUFACTURING, INC., A/K/A U.S. HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
VAUGHN CARNER, 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.
U.S. Foundry & Manufacturing appealed an order granting a rule nisi to enforce temporary disability benefits to employee Vaughn Carner. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the rule nisi while an appeal of the underlying workers' compensation award was pending.
The circuit court lacked jurisdiction to issue the rule nisi because the employer's notice of appeal divested the circuit court of jurisdiction, and the temporary benefits were listed in the notice of appeal, making the rule nisi proceeding premature.
[1] A circuit court's jurisdiction to issue a rule nisi to enforce a worker's compensation award is limited to enforcing the terms of a compensation order that is still in fu…
[2] A pending appeal from a worker's compensation award divests the circuit court of jurisdiction to consider an application for a rule nisi to enforce benefits awarded in th…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“[T]he circuit court's jurisdiction, on the claimant's application for a rule nisi, is solely limited to enforcing the terms of such a compensation order if the latter is still in full force and effect.”
Establishes the limited scope of circuit court jurisdiction in rule nisi proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarner filed a workers' compensation action against U.S. Foundry and was awarded permanent and temporary disability benefits. U.S. Foundry appealed to…
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 Rule Nisi cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
U.S. Foundry & Manufacturing, Inc., appeals an order denying its motion to dismiss and granting a rule nisi enforcing temporary disability benefits awarded to its employee, Vaughn Carner. We reverse.
Carner filed a worker’s compensation action against U.S. Foundry and was awarded permanent and temporary disability benefits. U.S. Foundry appealed to the First District Court of Appeal. U.S. Foundry & Mfg., Inc. v. Carner, 951 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). During the pendency of the appeal, Carner petitioned the circuit court for a rule nisi to enforce the temporary benefits. § 440.24(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). Carner argued that the temporary benefits issue had been abandoned on appeal because they were not included as an issue in the initial brief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.180(d)(1). Hence, Carner asserted that the circuit court had jurisdiction to issue the rule nisi. U.S. Foundry filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the court had no jurisdiction in view of the pending appeal.
The circuit court denied the dismissal motion, finding that the issue had been abandoned on appeal, and granted the rule nisi. U.S. Foundry appeals.
The court erred in granting the application for the rule nisi. “[T]he circuit court’s jurisdiction, on the claimant’s application for a rule nisi, is solely limited to enforcing the terms of such a compensation order if the latter is still in full force and effect.” North Shore Medical Center v. Capua, 634 So. 2d 1141, 1143 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Accord Maranje v. Brinks of Florida, Inc., 610 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Venne v. Kleuver, 435 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The rule nisi in this case was premature because the appeal from the worker’s compensation award was pending. The employer’s notice of appeal divested the circuit court of jurisdiction to consider the application for rule nisi. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.180(c)(l)(lower tribunal retains jurisdiction to decide issues not subject to review on appeal). The employer listed the temporary benefits, which were the subject of the rule nisi proceeding, in its notice of appeal. Fla. R.App. P. 9.180(c)(3). Hence, the court’s order enforcing these benefits went beyond its rule nisi jurisdiction.
Based on the foregoing, we reverse the order on appeal.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sidman v. Marino, 46 So. 3d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…onsent decree she entered into with Louis Marino, III, in 2000. We find that the lower court abused its discretion by modifying visitation without competent, substantial evidence of a substantial change in circumstances. See, e.g., Jannotta v. Hess, 959 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Sections 61.13(2)(e) and (3), Florida Statutes, each require, proof that modification of a parenting plan and time-sharing schedule is in the best interests of the child and is based upon a substantial, material, and unanticip…
-
Alexander v. Sec'y, Dep't OF Corr., Attorney Gen., State of Fla., 523 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2008)…odify a sentence generally is not appealable, but is subject to review in an extraordinary case under the Florida appellate court's certiorari jurisdiction. See Byrd v. State, 920 So. 2d 825, 826 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2006); see also Mathis v. State, 959 So. 2d 378 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2007) (dismissing appeal of order denying Rule 3.800(c) motion). .Under the “mailbox rule,” Alexander’s § 2254 petition is deemed filed on the date it was delivered to prison authorities for mailing. See Adams v. United States, 17…
-
Alexander v. Sec'y, Dep't OF Corr., Attorney Gen., State of Fla., 510 F.3d 1362 (11th Cir. 2007)…odify a sentence generally is not appealable, but is subject to review in an extraordinary case under the Florida appellate court's certiorari jurisdiction. See Byrd v. State, 920 So. 2d 825, 826 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2006); see also Mathis v. State, 959 So. 2d 378 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2007) (dismissing appeal of order denying Rule 3.800(c) motion). .Under the "mailbox rule,” Alexander's § 2254 petition is deemed filed on the date it was delivered to prison authorities for mailing. See Adams v. United States, 17…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Venne v. Kleuver, 435 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- N. Shore Med. Ctr. & Totura & Co. v. The Honorable S. Peter Capua, 634 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Maranje v. Brinks OF Fla., Inc., 610 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Murphy v. Sec'y of Fla. Dep't of Corr., 951 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- U.S. Foundry & Mfg., Inc. v. Vaughn Carner, 951 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)