ALCOMA PACKING CO. AND EXECUTIVE RISK CONSULTANTS, APPELLANTS,
v.
CLYDE COWAN, 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 Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) has jurisdiction to consider a motion to dismiss a petition for benefits, even after a docketing judge has ruled on its sufficiency.
The employer/carrier moved to dismiss a petition for benefits. The JCC denied the motion, finding he lacked jurisdiction because a docketing judge had…
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 Interlocutory Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case comes before the Court in an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a motion to dismiss a petition for benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denied the motion solely on the ground that he lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion to dismiss because a docketing Judge had already ruled on the sufficiency of the petition pursuant to section 440.45(3), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). The parties have conceded, correctly, that the JCC erred in ruling that he lacked jurisdiction to determine the merits of the employer/carrier’s motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, we reverse the order of the JCC and remand for a ruling on the motion to dismiss.1 See Whitlock v. Drazinic, 622 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 5th DCA) (en banc), review denied mem., 630 So. 2d 1103 (Fla.1993) (trial judge has inherent authority to reconsider interlocutory rulings, and a successor judge has the same authority to vacate or vary an interlocutory order as the original judge).
ALLEN and DAVIS, JJ., and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur. . Appellee asserts that the order should be affirmed under the alternate ground that the e/c failed to move for dismissal within thirty days as required by section 440.192(5), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). That statute imposes a requirement that motions to dismiss for lack of specificity must be asserted within thirty days. As the motion to dismiss filed below asserted other grounds for dismissal in addition to lack of specificity, we must remand for further proceedings despite the e/c's concession in the record that they had the petition for benefits more than thirty days before filing their motion to dismiss.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Glanton v. State, 705 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…State, 668 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Because the erroneous scoresheet calculation herein is apparent on the face of the record, it is reviewable under a rule 3.800 motion. See Owens v. State, 667 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Harris v. State, 659 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). As it appears to us from our reading of the scoresheet included in the record that the sentence imposed falls outside the permissible bump-up range, we must reverse and remand for resentencing utilizing a properly calculated sc…
-
Owens v. State, 667 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…ison on count I and ten years in prison on count II, a five-ceU bump up. Because the erroneous calculation on the face of the scoresheet is an error apparent on the face of the record, it is reviewable under a rule 3.800 motion. See Harris v. State, 659 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). We reject appeUant’s other sentencing chaUenges as lacking merit. Reversed and remanded for resentencing. POLEN, KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Trester L. Bryson v. State, 622 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Whitlock v. Stephan E. Drazinic, M.D. & Stephan E. Drazinic, M.D., P.A., 622 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)