Hamilton v. Alumax Extrusions, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hamilton v. Alumax Extrusions, Inc.

724 So. 2d 195, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 611, 1999 WL 28735

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 27, 1999

DocketNo. 97-4639

StatusPublished

This text of 724 So. 2d 195 (Hamilton v. Alumax Extrusions, Inc.) 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

Hamilton v. Alumax Extrusions, Inc., 724 So. 2d 195, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 611, 1999 WL 28735 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The JCC’s order dismissing the claim contains no finding of Claimant’s wilful noncompliance with a previous order, which compelled his attendance at independent medical examinations. Failure to include specific written findings of fact of wilfulness in the order of dismissal constitutes reversible error. Townsend v. Feinberg, 659 So.2d 1218, 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (citing Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271 (Fla.1990); In re the Forfeiture of Twenty Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($20,900) U.S. Currency, 539 So.2d 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the JCC to make the requisite written findings, provided they are supported by the record.

BOOTH, VAN NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

The JCC’s order dismissing the claim contains no finding of Claimant’s wilful noncompliance with a previous order, which compelled his attendance at independent medical examinations. Failure to include specific written findings of fact of wilfulness in the order of dismissal constitutes reversible error. Townsend v. Feinberg, 659 So.2d 1218, 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (citing Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271 (Fla.1990); In re the Forfeiture of Twenty Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($20,900) U.S. Currency, 539 So.2d 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the JCC to make the requisite written findings, provided they are supported by the record.

BOOTH, VAN NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

724 So. 2d 195, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 611, 1999 WL 28735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-alumax-extrusions-inc-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack