Jiminez v. United Parcel Service

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jiminez v. United Parcel Service

226 So. 3d 317, 2017 WL 2625440

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 19, 2017

DocketCASE NO. 1D16-4959

StatusPublished

This text of 226 So. 3d 317 (Jiminez v. United Parcel Service) 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

Jiminez v. United Parcel Service, 226 So. 3d 317, 2017 WL 2625440 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari review of an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) which dismissed his Petition for Benefits (PFB) for lack of jurisdiction. In that PFB, Petitioner challenged as unconstitutional the statutory cap on the weekly compensation rate set out in subsection 440.12(2), Florida Statutes (2014). Petitioner argues that the order dismissing his PFB, without affording him the opportunity to create a record for review in this court, resulted in irreparable harm and departed from the essential requirements of law. We agree. See Russ v. Brooksville Health Care Ctr., 109 So.3d 1266, 1268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (concluding, where claimant raised constitutional challenge, “JCC departed from the essential requirements of law, and caused irreparable harm by denying Claimant’s motion for an evidentiary hearing”).

The Petition is GRANTED, and the order dismissing the PFB is QUASHED,

ROBERTS, C.J., WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari review of an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) which dismissed his Petition for Benefits (PFB) for lack of jurisdiction. In that PFB, Petitioner challenged as unconstitutional the statutory cap on the weekly compensation rate set out in subsection 440.12(2), Florida Statutes (2014). Petitioner argues that the order dismissing his PFB, without affording him the opportunity to create a record for review in this court, resulted in irreparable harm and departed from the essential requirements of law. We agree. See Russ v. Brooksville Health Care Ctr., 109 So.3d 1266, 1268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (concluding, where claimant raised constitutional challenge, “JCC departed from the essential requirements of law, and caused irreparable harm by denying Claimant’s motion for an evidentiary hearing”).

The Petition is GRANTED, and the order dismissing the PFB is QUASHED,

ROBERTS, C.J., WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 So. 3d 317, 2017 WL 2625440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jiminez-v-united-parcel-service-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack