DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLANT,
v.
JUNE CULVER AND GLENN CULVER, 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.
The court dismissed an appeal from a nonfinal order denying summary judgment on workers' compensation immunity, finding the appeal not ripe under Hastings v. Demming, but certified a question of great public importance regarding the proper standard for reviewing such orders.
An appeal from a nonfinal order denying a motion for summary judgment based on workers' compensation immunity must be dismissed when the immunity issue, though appearing ripe, is governed by Hastings v. Demming.
[1] A nonfinal order denying a motion for summary judgment based on workers' compensation immunity is not appealable under Hastings v. …
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 intelligencePrison security officers employed by the Department of Corrections attacked June Culver, a prison psychologist, and the Department sought summary judg…
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 Workers' Compensation Immunity Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, Judge.
This is an appeal from a nonfinal order denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment based on workers’ compensation immunity. The sole issue was whether the prison security officers who worked for the Department of Corrections and the plaintiff, June Culver, a prison psychologist, were engaged in primarily unrelated works at the time of the attack on the plaintiff. A review of the record presented to the court on the motion for summary judgment reveals that there were no disputed issues of material fact involving the job duties and responsibilities of the various parties at the time of the attack. The order denying summary judgment simply states that it is denied without providing further reasoning. Although the immunity issue appears ripe for review, based upon the supreme court’s decision in Hastings v. Demming, 694 So. 2d 718, 22 Fla. L. Weekly S243 (Fla. May 8, 1997), this appeal must be dismissed. See Martin Electronics v. Glombowski, 705 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). For the reasons outlined in both the majority and concurring opinions in Martin, however, we certify the following question to be one of great public importance:
IN DETERMINING THE APPEALA-BILITY OF A NONFINAL ORDER DENYING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IMMUNITY, ARE WE RESTRICTED TO LOOKING ONLY AT THE ORDER ON APPEAL OR MAY WE REVIEW THE RECORD IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED IN HASTINGS V DEMMING, 682 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 2D DCA 1996).
The appeal is dismissed.
BOOTH, J., concurs.
VAN NORTWICK, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Dep't OF Corr. v. Culver, 716 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1998)…OVERTON, Justice. We have for review Department of Corrections v. Culver, 703 So. 2d 1211, 1212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), in which the district court certified the following question to be of great public importance: IN DETERMINING THE APPEALA-BILITY OF A NONFINAL ORDER DENYING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IMM…
Authorities Cited
- Hastings v. Demming, 694 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 1997)
- Hastings v. Demming, 682 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Martin Elecs., Inc. v. Glombowski, 705 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)