DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES AND STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALBERT ANDERSON, 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.
This workers' compensation case involved an appeal by the Employer/Carrier (E/C) regarding a Judge of Compensation Claims' (JCC) order. The E/C challenged the rejection of its affirmative defense and the reservation of jurisdiction over claims not filed on a petition for benefits. The appellate court affirmed the rejection of the defense but modified the order to strike the reservation of jurisdiction over unfiled claims.
The appellate court held that the JCC erred by reserving jurisdiction over benefit claims that were not the subject of a filed petition for benefits. The jurisdiction of the office of the judges of compensation claims must be invoked through the filing of a PFB.
[1] A Judge of Compensation Claims may properly reserve jurisdiction over workers' compensation claims that have been filed but not mediated, as such claims are not yet ripe…
[2] A Judge of Compensation Claims may not reserve jurisdiction over workers' compensation benefit issues that have never been the subject of a filed Petition for Benefits.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“In contrast, the JCC here granted Claimant’s request for reservation of jurisdiction over certain benefit issues that were not only never mediated, but also never the subject of any filed PFB.”
This quote highlights the key factual distinction that led to the court's decision regarding the reservation of jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Employer/Carrier (E/C) appealed a final merits hearing order where the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) rejected its partial affirmative defense…
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 Petition For Benefits (Pfb) cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation case, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) appeals that portion of a final merits hearing order wherein the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) rejected its partial affirmative defense under section 440.09(5), Florida Statutes (2009). The E/C also argues that the JCC erred by reserving jurisdiction on “claims” for workers’ compensation benefits that were not listed on any petition for benefits (PFB) filed by the injured employee (Claimant). We affirm the rejection of the partial affirmative defense without comment, but modify the order on appeal by striking the reservation of jurisdiction over any claims that were not the subject of a pending PFB at the time of the final hearing.
This court has previously held that a JCC may properly reserve jurisdiction over PFBs that have been filed, but not mediated, because mediation is mandatory under section 440.25(2), Florida Statutes; such unmediated claims are not procedurally ripe for adjudication. Parodi v. Fl. Contracting Co., Inc., 16 So.3d 958, 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (holding JCC properly reserved jurisdiction on unmediated PFBs); see also Ake v. U.S. Sugar Corp., 112 So.3d 171, 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that order containing both final disposition of claims ripe for adjudication as well as reservation of jurisdiction on unmediated PFBs results in final, appeal-able order). In contrast, the JCC here granted Claimant’s request for reservation of jurisdiction over certain benefit issues that were not only never mediated, but also never the subject of any filed PFB. In fact, the parties agree that the reserved issues concern benefits that have never been denied by the E/C. Because the jurisdiction of the office of the judges of compensation claims over these benefit issues was never invoked through the filing of a PFB, we find the reservation of jurisdiction over what are admittedly “future claims” improper and contrary to the self-executing system of workers’ compensation benefits. Accordingly, the order is AFFIRMED as modified.
LEWIS, C.J., WOLF and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Parodi v. Fla. Contracting Co., Inc., 16 So. 3d 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- AKE v. United States Sugar Corp. & Corvel Corp., 112 So. 3d 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)