Dailey v. General Accounting Machines

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dailey v. General Accounting Machines

411 So. 2d 1030, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19584

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 1, 1982

DocketNo. AC-375

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 411 So. 2d 1030 (Dailey v. General Accounting Machines) 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

Dailey v. General Accounting Machines, 411 So. 2d 1030, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19584 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Claimant appeals a workers’ compensation order which awarded various benefits and denied “all other claims.” Construing this language as a denial of such claims as were mature and ripe for adjudication and placed in issue, we affirm the order appealed.

Claimant argues, among other contentions, that the deputy erred by adjudicating the issue of permanent disability. The dep[1031]*1031uty found that claimant has sustained no permanent disability, and effectively adju-dieated the issue by awarding some benefits and denying “all other claims.”

A deputy should not, of course, rule on issues which are beyond the agreed scope of a hearing. See Pompano Roofing Co. v. O’Neal, 410 So.2d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA). In this case permanent disability was not expressly placed in issue by either the formal claim or the pre-trial stipulation, but the record does not show any express reservation of the issue or other fact bearing on estoppel against its submission. We conclude that in these circumstances a claimant may not rely on the pre-trial restrictions after initiating questioning of various physicians on this point. Further, the order found that claimant attained maximum medical improvement nearly a year prior to the date of the hearing. The issue of permanent disability was in this case clearly mature for adjudication, and the deputy did not err by ruling on the evidence put before him. Cf., Action Pool Builders v. Grant, IRC Order 2-3743 (March 23, 1979); see generally, Hunt v. International Minerals and Chemical Corp., 410 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Rights of the parties to isolate matters for hearing (and to preserve other issues for self-executing procedures) plainly must be exercised with respect for orderly disposition of matured claims at the time of entry of a final order.

The order appealed is hereby affirmed.

MILLS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Claimant appeals a workers’ compensation order which awarded various benefits and denied “all other claims.” Construing this language as a denial of such claims as were mature and ripe for adjudication and placed in issue, we affirm the order appealed.

Claimant argues, among other contentions, that the deputy erred by adjudicating the issue of permanent disability. The dep[1031]*1031uty found that claimant has sustained no permanent disability, and effectively adju-dieated the issue by awarding some benefits and denying “all other claims.”

A deputy should not, of course, rule on issues which are beyond the agreed scope of a hearing. See Pompano Roofing Co. v. O’Neal, 410 So.2d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA). In this case permanent disability was not expressly placed in issue by either the formal claim or the pre-trial stipulation, but the record does not show any express reservation of the issue or other fact bearing on estoppel against its submission. We conclude that in these circumstances a claimant may not rely on the pre-trial restrictions after initiating questioning of various physicians on this point. Further, the order found that claimant attained maximum medical improvement nearly a year prior to the date of the hearing. The issue of permanent disability was in this case clearly mature for adjudication, and the deputy did not err by ruling on the evidence put before him. Cf., Action Pool Builders v. Grant, IRC Order 2-3743 (March 23, 1979); see generally, Hunt v. International Minerals and Chemical Corp., 410 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Rights of the parties to isolate matters for hearing (and to preserve other issues for self-executing procedures) plainly must be exercised with respect for orderly disposition of matured claims at the time of entry of a final order.

The order appealed is hereby affirmed.

MILLS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

411 So. 2d 1030, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dailey-v-general-accounting-machines-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack