Catalina Yachts v. Warren

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Catalina Yachts v. Warren

946 So. 2d 76, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 21538, 2006 WL 3780375

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 27, 2006

DocketNo. 1D05-2594

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 946 So. 2d 76 (Catalina Yachts v. Warren) 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

Catalina Yachts v. Warren, 946 So. 2d 76, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 21538, 2006 WL 3780375 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The employer/carrier appeal a worker’s compensation order which resolved certain issues and stated that a claim for temporary partial disability benefits was granted. However, the order further indicated that it was not shown whether the claimant had received and returned any Employee Earnings Reports. Noting that without those forms the parties might be unable to determine the amount of benefits due, the order cited Jack Feagin Electric, Inc. v. Hallmark, 894 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), and specified that the benefits “are not payable until the forms are completed by the claimant and returned to the carrier.”

The claimant’s entitlement to temporary partial disability benefits was disputed at the hearing, and the appealed order did not resolve all outstanding issues in connection with that claim. Instead, it left the amount of such benefits unresolved and potentially subject to further dispute and another hearing after submission of the referenced forms. The order is thus interlocutory and not presently appealable. Crown Hotel v. Friedman, 420 So.2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); General Electric Co. v. Hawkins, 413 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

This appeal is therefore dismissed.

ALLEN, LEWIS, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The employer/carrier appeal a worker’s compensation order which resolved certain issues and stated that a claim for temporary partial disability benefits was granted. However, the order further indicated that it was not shown whether the claimant had received and returned any Employee Earnings Reports. Noting that without those forms the parties might be unable to determine the amount of benefits due, the order cited Jack Feagin Electric, Inc. v. Hallmark, 894 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), and specified that the benefits “are not payable until the forms are completed by the claimant and returned to the carrier.”

The claimant’s entitlement to temporary partial disability benefits was disputed at the hearing, and the appealed order did not resolve all outstanding issues in connection with that claim. Instead, it left the amount of such benefits unresolved and potentially subject to further dispute and another hearing after submission of the referenced forms. The order is thus interlocutory and not presently appealable. Crown Hotel v. Friedman, 420 So.2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); General Electric Co. v. Hawkins, 413 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

This appeal is therefore dismissed.

ALLEN, LEWIS, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

946 So. 2d 76, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 21538, 2006 WL 3780375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catalina-yachts-v-warren-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack