Liotta v. Publix Supermarket

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Liotta v. Publix Supermarket

718 So. 2d 935, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12789, 1998 WL 704152

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 12, 1998

DocketNo. 98-955

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 718 So. 2d 935 (Liotta v. Publix Supermarket) 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

Liotta v. Publix Supermarket, 718 So. 2d 935, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12789, 1998 WL 704152 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After Cathy Liotta slipped and fell at work, she sought temporary partial disability benefits, temporary total disability benefits, permanent total disability benefits, and authorization for back surgery she claimed her fall necessitated. Following a hearing on the merits, the judge of compensation claims entered an order denying indemnity benefits and appointing an expert medical advisor in accordance with section 440.13(9)(c), Florida Statutes (1997), because of conflict in the medical evidence as to causation of Ms. Liot-ta’s back problems. See Palm Springs Gen. Hosp. v. Cabrera, 698 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Awaiting the expert medical advisor’s testimony on causation, the judge of [936]*936compensation claims has not yet, as far as the record reveals, “rule[d] on a ripe issue that claimant properly presented for adjudication.” Betancourt v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 693 So.2d 680, 682 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). By appointing an expert medical advisor, the judge of compensation claims implicitly reserved jurisdiction to rule later on the com-pensability of the back surgery. This “renders the order nonfinal and nonappealable.” Id. “[A]n appeal from such an order will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” Id.

Dismissed.

BOOTH, BENTON and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

After Cathy Liotta slipped and fell at work, she sought temporary partial disability benefits, temporary total disability benefits, permanent total disability benefits, and authorization for back surgery she claimed her fall necessitated. Following a hearing on the merits, the judge of compensation claims entered an order denying indemnity benefits and appointing an expert medical advisor in accordance with section 440.13(9)(c), Florida Statutes (1997), because of conflict in the medical evidence as to causation of Ms. Liot-ta’s back problems. See Palm Springs Gen. Hosp. v. Cabrera, 698 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Awaiting the expert medical advisor’s testimony on causation, the judge of [936]*936compensation claims has not yet, as far as the record reveals, “rule[d] on a ripe issue that claimant properly presented for adjudication.” Betancourt v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 693 So.2d 680, 682 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). By appointing an expert medical advisor, the judge of compensation claims implicitly reserved jurisdiction to rule later on the com-pensability of the back surgery. This “renders the order nonfinal and nonappealable.” Id. “[A]n appeal from such an order will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” Id.

Dismissed.

BOOTH, BENTON and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

718 So. 2d 935, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12789, 1998 WL 704152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liotta-v-publix-supermarket-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack