Good Samaritan Hospital v. Bishop

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Good Samaritan Hospital v. Bishop

413 So. 2d 158, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19868

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 29, 1982

DocketNo. ZZ-429

StatusPublished

This text of 413 So. 2d 158 (Good Samaritan Hospital v. Bishop) 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

Good Samaritan Hospital v. Bishop, 413 So. 2d 158, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19868 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The subject of this appeal is a deputy commissioner’s finding that the employer violated Section 440.205, Florida Statutes, by terminating the claimant’s employment “by reason of such employee’s valid claim for compensation or attempt to claim compensation under the Worker’s Compensation Law.”

Appellants assert that the deputy commissioner lacked jurisdiction to determine whether a violation of Section 440.205 occurred. We agree that the deputy commissioner was without statutory authority to make such a finding and it is without effect. Cf. U. S. Home Corporation v. Parker, 404 So.2d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (deputy commissioner lacked specific statutory authority to adjudicate controversy as to validity of contract between carrier and subcontractor). We thus determine that no remedy for termination of employment on account of a claim or attempted claim for compensation exists in a proceeding before a deputy commissioner to obtain benefits under the Worker’s Compensation Law. However, we reserve for determination in a proper case the question whether a cause of action may be implied, based on Section 440.205, in a proceeding in circuit court. See Piezo Technology and Professional Administrators, Inc. v. Smith, 413 So.2d 121 (Fla. 1st DCA Case No. ZZ-27 opinion filed April 26, 1982).

REVERSED

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The subject of this appeal is a deputy commissioner’s finding that the employer violated Section 440.205, Florida Statutes, by terminating the claimant’s employment “by reason of such employee’s valid claim for compensation or attempt to claim compensation under the Worker’s Compensation Law.”

Appellants assert that the deputy commissioner lacked jurisdiction to determine whether a violation of Section 440.205 occurred. We agree that the deputy commissioner was without statutory authority to make such a finding and it is without effect. Cf. U. S. Home Corporation v. Parker, 404 So.2d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (deputy commissioner lacked specific statutory authority to adjudicate controversy as to validity of contract between carrier and subcontractor). We thus determine that no remedy for termination of employment on account of a claim or attempted claim for compensation exists in a proceeding before a deputy commissioner to obtain benefits under the Worker’s Compensation Law. However, we reserve for determination in a proper case the question whether a cause of action may be implied, based on Section 440.205, in a proceeding in circuit court. See Piezo Technology and Professional Administrators, Inc. v. Smith, 413 So.2d 121 (Fla. 1st DCA Case No. ZZ-27 opinion filed April 26, 1982).

REVERSED

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

413 So. 2d 158, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/good-samaritan-hospital-v-bishop-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack