TRACIE RUCKER, APPELLANT,
v.
JUST BRAKES AND THE HARTFORD, APPELLEES
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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the court reversed the Judge of Compensation Claims' denial of penalties and interest on temporary partial disability benefits, finding the JCC violated the claimant's due process rights by sua sponte considering a defense that the employer/carrier never raised.
The court reversed, holding that the JCC violated the claimant's due process rights by sua sponte raising the DWC-19 defense without affording the claimant an opportunity to present evidence, and that once the JCC found the claimant entitled to temporary partial disability benefits, penalties and interest must be awarded.
[1] A Judge of Compensation Claims violates due process by sua sponte considering a defense not raised by the employer/carrier and denying benefits on that basis.
[2] A claimant is entitled to penalties and interest on awarded temporary partial disability benefits when the benefits are not paid within seven days of becoming due.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The JCC violated Claimant's due process rights by sua sponte considering a defense not raised by the E/C and denying the claim for payment of penalties and interest on that basis, thereby depriving Claimant of the opportunity to present evidence regarding her entitlement to the awards.”
Establishes that the JCC's sua sponte consideration of an unraised defense violated due process
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant filed a petition for temporary partial disability benefits on July 15, 2010, claiming entitlement from April 28, 2010. The employer/carrier d…
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 Penalties And Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation appeal, Claimant challenges an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying penalties and interest on the awarded temporary partial disability benefits. We reverse, finding the JCC erred in considering a defense not raised by the Employer/Carrier and failing to award penalties and interest after determining Claimant *808was entitled to temporary partial disability benefits.
Claimant filed a petition for benefits on July 15, 2010, claiming entitlement to temporary partial disability benefits from April 28, 2010, and continuing. The E/C denied entitlement on grounds Claimant was at or near maximum medical improvement and Claimant could not demonstrate a nexus between her reduced earnings and the physical restrictions resulting from her injuries. At no time did the E/C assert that Claimant was not entitled to the claimed benefits because she failed to return to the Carrier the employee earnings reports, also called DWC-19s.
Following the final hearing, the JCC found Claimant entitled to most of the claimed temporary partial disability benefits. The JCC further found Claimant had not filed the DWC-19 forms sent to her attorney, although the E/C never raised this as a defense. The JCC predicated the E/C’s obligation to pay the disputed benefits on Claimant’s filing of the forms and denied the requested penalties and interest because the benefits were not due and owing until the forms were filed.
The JCC violated Claimant’s due process rights by sua sponte considering a defense not raised by the E/C and denying the claim for payment of penalties and interest on that basis, thereby depriving Claimant of the opportunity to present evidence regarding her entitlement to the awards. See School Dist. of Hillsborough County v. Dickson, 67 So.3d 1080, 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding “JCC denied E/C due process when she sua sponte raised the application of section 440.20(4) without affording the E/C the opportunity to present evidence regarding the section’s application”). Because the JCC found Claimant entitled to an award of temporary partial disability benefits, the JCC erred in denying penalties and interest. See Republic Waste Servs. Inc. v. Ricardo, 68 So.3d 934, 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding penalties and interest were due because “claimant established that he was entitled to temporary, partial disability benefits, and proved that he was not paid these benefits within seven days of the date they became due, [thus,] he made out a prima facie case for penalties and interest. See § 440.20(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009)”).
Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND this matter to the JCC for entry of an order striking all references to Claimant’s failure to file the DWC-19s and directing payment to Claimant of penalties and interest on the awarded temporary partial disability benefits.
PADOVANO, HAWKES, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leon v. CSB Servs., Inc., 219 So. 3d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…on medical necessity—a defense that was not raised. This Court has held that a JCC’s sua sponte denial of a claim based on a defense not raised at all by the E/C below is a violation of the claimant’s right to due process. See Rucker v. Just Brakes, 75 So. 3d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Moreover, in the specific factual circumstances presented by this case, the E/C waived a challenge to medical necessity by not asserting it in the pretrial stipulation. Cf. Marin v. Aaron’s Rent To Own, 53 So. 3d 1048, 1050 (Fla…
Authorities Cited
- Sch. Dist. of Hillsborough County/Broadspire v. Dickson, 67 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Republic Waste Servs. v. Ricardo, 68 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)