Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles/Division of Risk Management v. Romano
948 So. 2d 815, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 103, 2007 WL 43555
Opinion
Upon consideration of the employer/carrier’s (E/C) response to this court’s order to show cause dated December 4, 2006, the court has determined that the order on appeal is not a reviewable adverse order. See Crown Pontiac, Inc. v. Bell, 547 So.2d 290 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). If, in the future, claimant files another petition for benefits seeking benefits from the E/C, the E/C may assert their affirmative defense of misrepresentation at that time.
DISMISSED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles/Division of Risk Management v. Romano, 948 So. 2d 815, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 103, 2007 WL 43555 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).
948 So. 2d 815 (Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles/Division of Risk Management v. Romano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Crown Pontiac, Inc. v. Bell
547 So. 2d 290 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)