UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI AND GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, APPELLANTS,
v.
VENDA WEST, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a workers' compensation award because the Judge of Compensation Claims failed to include sufficient ultimate findings of fact and conclusions of law required by statute, making appellate review impossible.
The court reversed because the JCC failed to set forth sufficient findings of ultimate facts to permit meaningful appellate review. The JCC's order merely relayed claimant testimony without addressing medical evidence and failed to clarify which arguments it accepted regarding the plastic surgeon claim and the temporary partial disability defense.
[1] A Judge of Compensation Claims' order must contain sufficient findings of ultimate facts to permit appellate review.
[2] An order awarding benefits must set forth ultimate findings of fact and the mandate, but need not include other reasons or justification.
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“Section 440.25(4)(e), Florida Statutes, requires the JCC only to 'set forth the findings of ultimate facts and the mandate; and the order need not include any other reason or justification for such mandate.' It is necessary, however, for the JCC to make sufficient findings of ultimate facts to permit appellate review.”
Establishes the statutory standard and the court's interpretation that while the JCC need not provide detailed reasoning, sufficient ultimate findings are mandatory for appellate review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVenda West, a claimant, sought workers' compensation medical and indemnity benefits from the University of Miami and Gallagher Bassett Services. The c…
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 Medical Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
The Employer/Carrier (E/C) appeals the Judge of Compensation Claims’ (JCC) award of medical and indemnity benefits. Because the order contains no ultimate findings of fact or conclusions of law, we reverse.
Section 440.25(4)(e), Florida Statutes, requires the JCC only to “set forth the findings of ultimate facts and the mandate; and the order need not include any other reason or justification for such mandate.” It is necessary, however, for the JCC to make sufficient findings of ultimate *1194facts to permit appellate review. See Lee County Parks & Recreation/Lee County Bd. of County Com’rs v. Fifer, 996 So.2d 229, 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (reversing the JCC’s award of indemnity benefits because it was “unclear whether the JCC considered the merits” of the claim).
Here, the JCC’s “factual findings” consisted of relaying Claimant’s testimony. No medical testimony was even mentioned. Additionally, an ambiguity was created when the JCC sustained the E/C’s objection to Claimant’s testimony regarding the need for a plastic surgeon, which the E/C argued was a new claim, while simultaneously advising the parties that the issue was a medical one, and that he would review the medical testimony and be guided accordingly. The JCC’s order makes no finding as to which argument was accepted.
Another issue before the JCC was a claim for temporary partial disability benefits. Included in the E/C’s defenses was that the benefit was not due because Claimant was terminated for cause, and there was no medical evidence to support an award of temporary partial disability benefits. The JCC hinted at his ultimate finding, at least in regard to the defense of termination for cause, when he found “Ms. West’s indication that any absences deemed ‘excessive’ would be the result of her compensable accident appears well founded.” The JCC did not, however, reference any medical evidence to support the award. Because the JCC included an award of temporary partial disability benefits in the decretal portion of the order, it appears the JCC rejected the E/C’s defenses.
This court will not “evaluate and weigh the evidence produced below.” Allen v. Protel, Inc., 852 So.2d 916, 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (reversing and remanding “the case for further consistent proceedings,” where the JCC failed to explain why he rejected the expert medical advisor’s opinion). Here, the JCC’s failure to make ultimate findings of fact precludes meaningful appellate review.
Accordingly, this matter is REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
HAWKES, C.J., PADOVANO and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grell v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 44 So. 3d 201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…Appellant’s testimony concerning his search for the week ending July 5, 2009, through the week ending August 29, 2009, our review is hampered. Because this Court will not “evaluate and weigh the evidence produced below,” University of Miami v. West, 8 So. 3d 1193, 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (quoting Allen v. Protel, Inc., 852 So. 2d 916, 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)), we must reverse the portion of the UAC’s order affirming the denial of benefits and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The…
-
Buttrick v. BY THE SEA Resorts & Claims Ctr., 84 So. 3d 476 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…ts and the associated penalties, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. Because the JCC failed to make a finding as to whether Claimant achieved maximum medical improvement (MMI), meaningful appellate review is impossible. See Univ. of Miami v. West, 8 So. 3d 1193, 1193-94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (holding JCC must “make sufficient findings of ultimate facts to permit appellate review”). Accordingly, we reverse and remand this matter to the JCC to clarify Claimant’s MMI status. Should the JCC find Claimant to be…
-
Venda West v. Univ. OF Miami & Gallagher Bassett Servs., 69 So. 3d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…generally Jones v. City of St. Petersburg, 46 So. 3d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (defining when penalties are due). Fourth, because the JCC failed to determine whether the claim for a plastic surgeon was properly before him, see Univ. of Miami v. West, 8 So. 3d 1193, 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), we remand for a ruling on that issue and, should the JCC determine the claim was indeed properly before him, for a ruling on the merits of the claim for a plastic surgeon. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED…
Authorities Cited
- Allen v. Protel, Inc., 852 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- LEE Cnty. Parks & Recreation/LEE Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs & Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc. v. Fifer, 996 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)