JOHNS EASTERN COMPANY AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BCC, APPELLANTS,
v.
STEVE SCHRAW, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2013-06-03
No. 1D12-5513
BENTON, C.J., and CLARK, J., concur.
115 So. 3d 428 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2013) Positive Treatment

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.


Holding

The court affirmed the award of benefits but reversed the JCC's failure to rule on the employer/carrier's misrepresentation defense.


Facts & Procedural History

A firefighter was awarded benefits for a heart condition. The employer/carrier appealed, arguing the JCC failed to rule on their misrepresentation def…

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.

Opinion of the Court
THOMAS, J.

THOMAS, J.

The Employer/Carrier (E/C) appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) awarding benefits, based on a finding that Claimant, a firefighter, established compensability of his pre-ventri-cular contraction condition, pursuant to section 112.18, Florida Statutes. The E/C raises two points on appeal.

Because competent, substantial medical evidence supports the JCC’s finding that Claimant suffered from an impairment in health and other conditions caused by heart disease, we affirm that point without further comment. We find reversible error on the second issue, regarding the JCC’s failure to rule on the misrepresentation defense raised by the E/C at final hearing.

Claimant argues on appeal that the E/C’s fraud defense was asserted untimely. Claimant argued below, however, only that the allegations had no merit. Regardless of the merits of either of Claimant’s arguments (and we make no ruling on such), the JCC failed to provide any ruling on the E/C’s fraud defense, making meaningful appellate review impossible. We therefore remand for the JCC to make a ruling on the E/C’s misrepresentation defense, based solely on the record previously established. See Betancourt v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 693 So.2d 680, 682 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (holding where JCC fails to rule on fully tried issue ripe for adjudication and does not reserve jurisdiction, absence of ruling constitutes reversible error).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for ruling on fraud defense.

BENTON, C.J., and CLARK, J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw