Hit Promotional Products Inc. v. Krivdic

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hit Promotional Products Inc. v. Krivdic

84 So. 3d 1234, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5601, 2012 WL 1231704

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 12, 2012·No. No. 1D11-4097·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) challenges the Judge of Compensation Claims’ (JCC’s) award of a $2,000 advance to Claimant. We affirm the award of the advance because competent substantial evidence supports the JCC’s finding that Claimant has been unable to return to the same or equivalent employment, one of the three alternative statutory requisites for an award of an advance of $2,000 or less. See § 440.20(12)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010).

The E/C also argues that the JCC made a de facto finding that Claimant’s injuries were compensable. Because that issue was not before the JCC, we strike from the order the phrase “work-related” in paragraph eight. See City of Venice v. Van Dyke, 46 So.3d 115, 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (striking findings addressing com-pensability of claimant’s hypertension because there was no pending claim for same).

The order is AFFIRMED as modified.

WOLF, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) challenges the Judge of Compensation Claims’ (JCC’s) award of a $2,000 advance to Claimant. We affirm the award of the advance because competent substantial evidence supports the JCC’s finding that Claimant has been unable to return to the same or equivalent employment, one of the three alternative statutory requisites for an award of an advance of $2,000 or less. See § 440.20(12)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010).

The E/C also argues that the JCC made a de facto finding that Claimant’s injuries were compensable. Because that issue was not before the JCC, we strike from the order the phrase “work-related” in paragraph eight. See City of Venice v. Van Dyke, 46 So.3d 115, 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (striking findings addressing com-pensability of claimant’s hypertension because there was no pending claim for same).

The order is AFFIRMED as modified.

WOLF, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

Hit Promotional Products Inc. v. Krivdic, 84 So. 3d 1234, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5601, 2012 WL 1231704 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

84 So. 3d 1234 (Hit Promotional Products Inc. v. Krivdic) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related