Alro Metals v. Pullins

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Alro Metals v. Pullins

451 So. 2d 1001, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13571

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 15, 1984

DocketNo. AW-256

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 451 So. 2d 1001 (Alro Metals v. Pullins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alro Metals v. Pullins, 451 So. 2d 1001, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13571 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

ZEHMER, Judge.

The employer and carrier appeal the deputy commissioner’s order awarding wage-loss benefits from December 1, 1980, to September 1, 1981. With the single exception noted below, we find the order is supported by competent and substantial evidence.

The order allows wage-loss benefits commencing December 1, 1980. The claim alleged benefits were due commencing December 14. The undisputed evidence shows that claimant was employed until December 18. The order is hereby modified to commence benefits on December 18. Ordinarily, we would not correct this discrepancy on appeal because it could have, and indeed should have, been brought to the attention of the deputy within the thirty-day statutory period before becoming final. E.g., Juma Construction v. Villaneuva, 437 So.2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Sunland Hospital v. Garrett, 415 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); § 440.25(4)(a), Fla.Stat. (1981). We do so only because claimant concedes this error.

The only error demonstrated by appellants should have been presented to the deputy for correction. The other contentions of appellants are so lacking in merit as to render this appeal frivolous. A fee in the amount of $2,000 is allowed for the services of claimant’s attorney.

The appealed order, as modified, is AFFIRMED.

SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ZEHMER, Judge.

The employer and carrier appeal the deputy commissioner’s order awarding wage-loss benefits from December 1, 1980, to September 1, 1981. With the single exception noted below, we find the order is supported by competent and substantial evidence.

The order allows wage-loss benefits commencing December 1, 1980. The claim alleged benefits were due commencing December 14. The undisputed evidence shows that claimant was employed until December 18. The order is hereby modified to commence benefits on December 18. Ordinarily, we would not correct this discrepancy on appeal because it could have, and indeed should have, been brought to the attention of the deputy within the thirty-day statutory period before becoming final. E.g., Juma Construction v. Villaneuva, 437 So.2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Sunland Hospital v. Garrett, 415 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); § 440.25(4)(a), Fla.Stat. (1981). We do so only because claimant concedes this error.

The only error demonstrated by appellants should have been presented to the deputy for correction. The other contentions of appellants are so lacking in merit as to render this appeal frivolous. A fee in the amount of $2,000 is allowed for the services of claimant’s attorney.

The appealed order, as modified, is AFFIRMED.

SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

451 So. 2d 1001, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alro-metals-v-pullins-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack