DHL EXPRESS, INC. AND SEDGWICK CMS, APPELLANTS,
v.
RAQUEL MACHIN, 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 affirmed the award of permanent total disability benefits to the claimant in a workers' compensation case, and admonished counsel for the employer/carrier for filing the initial brief three days late without credible justification.
The Judge of Compensation Claims' award of permanent total disability benefits to the claimant is affirmed.
[1] Counsel's failure to comply with a court-ordered deadline for filing a brief, absent good cause, violates professional conduct standards and will not be tolerated.
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 intelligenceThe employer/carrier appealed a workers' compensation judge's award of permanent total disability benefits to the claimant.…
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 Professional Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation matter, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) appeals the Judge of Compensation Claims’ award of permanent total disability benefits to Claimant. Finding no merit to the E/C’s arguments, we affirm the order. We write only to address counsel for the E/C’s violation of this Court’s order regarding the extension of time given to Counsel for filing of the initial brief. Counsel sought, and was granted, a ten day extension to file the initial brief, resulting in a due date of June 27, 2016. Notwithstanding, Counsel filed the brief on June 30.
Along with the late-filed brief, Counsel filed a motion to accept the brief as timely. In his required explanation of reasons for violating this Court’s order to file the brief by June 27, Counsel offered no credible justification. This opinion shall serve as a reminder to all members of the Florida Bar that professional conduct and strict compliance with the orders of this Court are not only expected but are mandatory. As detailed in the “Notice to Attorneys and Parties” issued June 27, 2014,* extensions to file a brief served after the time has expired for serving the brief will generally not be granted absent a showing of good cause. The violation occurring here will not be tolerated in the future.
AFFIRMED.
B.L. THOMAS, WETHERELL, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ„ CONCUR.