Izquierdo v. Volkswagen Interamericana

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Izquierdo v. Volkswagen Interamericana

450 So. 2d 602, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13306

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 30, 1984

DocketNo. AU-482

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 450 So. 2d 602 (Izquierdo v. Volkswagen Interamericana) 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

Izquierdo v. Volkswagen Interamericana, 450 So. 2d 602, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13306 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

SHIVERS, Judge.

In this workers’ compensation case, claimant, Izquierdo, appeals an order of the deputy commissioner. Appellant contends that the deputy commissioner erred in failing to award temporary partial disability benefits for a specified period of time and in denying wage-loss benefits pursuant to section 440.15(3)(b)3d, Florida Statutes (1979). We affirm.

The order sub judice, although awarding temporary total disability benefits from March 28, 1980, to May 26, 1982, and again from January 10, 1983, through April 20, 1983, is silent as to the interim period which the award creates, i.e., May 26, 1982, to January 10, 1983. Appellant contends that he is entitled to temporary partial disability benefits during this hiatus.

This error or oversight, if it is such, was never pointed out to .the deputy commissioner even though appellant had every opportunity to do so. An order prior to the one sub judice was entered on August 1, 1983. That order also was silent as to the hiatus. Claimant moved for reconsideration of the August 1 order and raised several issues but did not raise this issue. The deputy commissioner granted appellant’s motion for reconsideration, vacated the August 1 order, and entered the order sub judice. At no time did appellant bring this issue to the attention of the deputy commissioner. Therefore, we affirm. Mezquita v. Florida Steel Corp., 419 So.2d 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Sunland Hospital/State of Florida v. Garrett, 415 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

We also find that appellant has no standing to challenge the constitutionality of section 440.15(3)(b)3.d., Florida Statutes (1979). The order contains no finding that claimant would be entitled to wage-loss benefits but for the provisions of section 440.15(3)(b)3.d. Acosta v. Kraco, Inc., 426 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Jack Eckerd Corp. v. Coker, 411 So.2d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

AFFIRMED.

MILLS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

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

SHIVERS, Judge.

In this workers’ compensation case, claimant, Izquierdo, appeals an order of the deputy commissioner. Appellant contends that the deputy commissioner erred in failing to award temporary partial disability benefits for a specified period of time and in denying wage-loss benefits pursuant to section 440.15(3)(b)3d, Florida Statutes (1979). We affirm.

The order sub judice, although awarding temporary total disability benefits from March 28, 1980, to May 26, 1982, and again from January 10, 1983, through April 20, 1983, is silent as to the interim period which the award creates, i.e., May 26, 1982, to January 10, 1983. Appellant contends that he is entitled to temporary partial disability benefits during this hiatus.

This error or oversight, if it is such, was never pointed out to .the deputy commissioner even though appellant had every opportunity to do so. An order prior to the one sub judice was entered on August 1, 1983. That order also was silent as to the hiatus. Claimant moved for reconsideration of the August 1 order and raised several issues but did not raise this issue. The deputy commissioner granted appellant’s motion for reconsideration, vacated the August 1 order, and entered the order sub judice. At no time did appellant bring this issue to the attention of the deputy commissioner. Therefore, we affirm. Mezquita v. Florida Steel Corp., 419 So.2d 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Sunland Hospital/State of Florida v. Garrett, 415 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

We also find that appellant has no standing to challenge the constitutionality of section 440.15(3)(b)3.d., Florida Statutes (1979). The order contains no finding that claimant would be entitled to wage-loss benefits but for the provisions of section 440.15(3)(b)3.d. Acosta v. Kraco, Inc., 426 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Jack Eckerd Corp. v. Coker, 411 So.2d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

AFFIRMED.

MILLS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

450 So. 2d 602, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/izquierdo-v-volkswagen-interamericana-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack