EUDILIA GONZALEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
PUBLIX AND ITT SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, 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.
Gonzalez sought appellate review of a non-final order denying her request for an Independent Medical Examination in a workers' compensation case. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the pre-1994 workers' compensation law applied to her February 10, 1993 accident, and therefore the 1993 statutory amendments invoked by the appellant did not provide jurisdiction.
The applicable law is that in effect on February 10, 1993, not the 1993 amendments. Because the appellant's jurisdictional argument rested on the amendments to section 440.13(5) enacted by chapter 93-415, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction.
[1] The law in effect on the date of the accident, not subsequent amendments, governs the substantive legal issues in a case.
[2] Appellate jurisdiction to review a non-final order may be declined if the jurisdictional argument relies on the application of subsequently enacted statutory amendments.
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“the applicable law in this case is the law in effect on February 10, 1993, the date of the accident, and that the 1993 amendments cited by the parties do not apply”
Establishes the choice-of-law rule that the statute in effect at the time of injury governs workers' compensation claims.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGonzalez was injured in an accident on February 10, 1993. She requested an Independent Medical Examination, which was denied by the judge of compensat…
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 Independent Medical Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The claimant has sought review of a non-final order that denied her request for an Independent Medical Examination (IME). Because the briefs and the record in this case indicated that the parties and the judge of compensation claims were operating on the assumption that the applicable law was chapter 93-415, Laws of Florida, which went into effect on January 1, 1994, the parties were ordered to file supplemental briefs addressing the following issues:
1. Whether the applicable statutory law is the law in effect on February 10, 1993, the date of the accident.
2. Assuming that the applicable law is that in effect on February 10, 1993, whether this court has jurisdiction to consider this appeal under the requirements set out in Hines Electric v. McClure, 616 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
Having reviewed the supplemental briefs, we hold that the applicable law in this case is the law in effect on February 10, 1993, the date of the accident, and that the 1993 amendments cited by the parties do not apply. See Southern Bakeries and Kemper Group v. Corwin Cooper, No. 94-1715, — So .2d — [1995 WL 155374] (Fla. 1st DCA April 11, 1995). Because the appellant’s jurisdictional argument is based upon application of the amendments to section 440.13(5) enacted by chapter 93-415, Laws of Florida, we decline to exercise jurisdiction to consider this case under the requirements set out in Hines Electric v. McClure, 616 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
The appeal is therefore DISMISSED. However, before proceeding further, the parties and the judge of compensation claims are advised to carefully review this Court’s opinion in Southern Bakeries v. Cooper. BARFIELD and KAHN, JJ., concur. ALLEN, J., concurs in result.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Butler v. BAY Center/CHUBB Ins. Co., 947 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…ensation claimant’s entitlement to medical services as substantive, not procedural. See, e.g., Russell v. P.I.E. Nationwide, 668 So. 2d 696, 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); S. Bakeries v. Cooper, 659 So. 2d 339, 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Gonzalez v. Publix, 654 So. 2d 634, 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). We have described as procedural, those changes “which merely affect the method of proof....” S. Bakeries, 659 So. 2d at 340. We have recognized that it is occasionally “difficult to clearly demarcate the distinction betwee…
Authorities Cited
- Hines Elec. & Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. McCLURE, 616 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)