Castro v. Fellsmere Management

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Castro v. Fellsmere Management

589 So. 2d 425, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11405, 1991 WL 239923

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 15, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2957

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 589 So. 2d 425 (Castro v. Fellsmere Management) 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

Castro v. Fellsmere Management, 589 So. 2d 425, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11405, 1991 WL 239923 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Maria Castro (claimant) appeals from a final order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC) dismissing the claim for benefits. The claimant asked for a determination of the correct date that claimant became permanently and totally disabled (PTD), as well as payment of supplemental benefits from the date of PTD. The JCC determined that she was without jurisdiction to adjudicate the permanent total disability claim because Fellsmere Management and Nationwide Insurance Company (E/C) accepted the claimant as PTD prior to the claim being filed. Claimant asserts that the JCC erred in dismissing the entire claim, and that she was entitled to have her claim for supplemental benefits adjudicated in accordance with Florida Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Renfroe, 568 So.2d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So.2d 1308 (Fla.1991). We agree.¹

The E/C asserts that since there was no dispute concerning claimant’s status as PTD, the JCC lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. The E/C relies on the cases Ardmore Farms v. Smith, 423 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); United Tel. Co. of Florida v. Wooten, 468 So.2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); and Sperry Remington Office Machines v. Stelling, 383 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The E/C acknowledges, however, that there was a dispute between the parties concerning when the claimant became entitled to supplemental benefits.² In the cases relied on by the E/C, there was no indication that a bona fide dispute concerning benefits existed. Those cases are, therefore, inapplicable. Where there is a dispute concerning entitlement to benefits, the JCC has full power and authority to hear such claims. See § 440.25(1), Fla. Stat. The JCC, therefore, erred in dismissing the claim.

Reversed and remanded with directions that the JCC consider the claim for supplemental benefits in accordance with the dictates of Renfroe, supra.

BOOTH, WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Maria Castro (claimant) appeals from a final order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC) dismissing the claim for benefits. The claimant asked for a determination of the correct date that claimant became permanently and totally disabled (PTD), as well as payment of supplemental benefits from the date of PTD. The JCC determined that she was without jurisdiction to adjudicate the permanent total disability claim because Fellsmere Management and Nationwide Insurance Company (E/C) accepted the claimant as PTD prior to the claim being filed. Claimant asserts that the JCC erred in dismissing the entire claim, and that she was entitled to have her claim for supplemental benefits adjudicated in accordance with Florida Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Renfroe, 568 So.2d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So.2d 1308 (Fla.1991). We agree.¹

The E/C asserts that since there was no dispute concerning claimant’s status as PTD, the JCC lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. The E/C relies on the cases Ardmore Farms v. Smith, 423 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); United Tel. Co. of Florida v. Wooten, 468 So.2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); and Sperry Remington Office Machines v. Stelling, 383 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The E/C acknowledges, however, that there was a dispute between the parties concerning when the claimant became entitled to supplemental benefits.² In the cases relied on by the E/C, there was no indication that a bona fide dispute concerning benefits existed. Those cases are, therefore, inapplicable. Where there is a dispute concerning entitlement to benefits, the JCC has full power and authority to hear such claims. See § 440.25(1), Fla. Stat. The JCC, therefore, erred in dismissing the claim.

Reversed and remanded with directions that the JCC consider the claim for supplemental benefits in accordance with the dictates of Renfroe, supra.

BOOTH, WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

589 So. 2d 425, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11405, 1991 WL 239923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castro-v-fellsmere-management-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack