CITY OF SANFORD, APPELLANT,
v.
HAROLD BRADLEY, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a workers' compensation order awarding temporary disability benefits through the date of the last hearing, interpreting the order's language as requiring compliance with statutory provisions rather than creating indefinite future liability, and amended the order to delete the improper reservation of jurisdiction over maximum medical improvement and permanent disability issues.
An order awarding temporary disability benefits to the date of the last hearing and thereafter for as long as claimant remains disabled is affirmed as requiring compliance with statutory provisions, and the improper reservation of jurisdiction over future issues is deleted.
[1] A workers' compensation order awarding temporary disability benefits to the date of the last hearing with language extending benefits for as long as claimant remains disa…
[2] A deputy workers' compensation judge may not reserve jurisdiction over issues of maximum medical improvement and permanent disability that are not mature and ripe for adj…
Previewing 2 of 2 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/carrier appealed a workers' compensation order awarding temporary disability benefits to claimant for an industrial injury. A post-hearing…
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 Temporary Disability Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Employer/carrier appeals a workers’ compensation order which we affirm. While a post-hearing deposition suggests that claimant has now reached maximum medical improvement from his industrial injury, the order appealed awards temporary disability benefits to “the date of the last hearing” and thereafter “for as long as [claimant] remains” so disabled. The record on appeal contains competent substantial evidence that claimant was temporarily disabled through the date of the last hearing, and we regard the order’s additional language as surplusage intended to require that employer/carrier comply with the provisions of § 440.15(2)(a), Florida Statutes. As so construed, we find the contested language to be without error. We also note that this issue could more appropriately have been submitted for the deputy’s reconsideration. See Acosta Roofing Co. v. Gillyard, 402 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
In the order appealed the deputy expressly reserved jurisdiction to determine the date of maximum medical improvement and the extent of any permanent disability. While these issues were not mature and ripe for adjudication as of the date of the last hearing, and the deputy therefore did not err by declining to rule thereon, the proper course is for the deputy to dispose of these issues only upon their submission when mature. Accordingly, the order appealed is hereby amended so as to delete the reservation of jurisdiction as to these issues.
The order appealed is affirmed as amended.
MILLS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Acosta Roofing Co. & Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Gussie Gillyard, 402 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)