Maryland Casualty Co. v. Milholin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Milholin

608 So. 2d 850, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10440, 1992 WL 267003

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 9, 1992

DocketNo. 92-00443

StatusPublished

This text of 608 So. 2d 850 (Maryland Casualty Co. v. Milholin) 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

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Milholin, 608 So. 2d 850, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10440, 1992 WL 267003 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

BLUE, Judge.

Maryland Casualty Company appeals the circuit court’s issuance of a writ of execution for enforcement of a worker’s compensation order. We hold the trial court had the authority to issue a writ, because the worker’s compensation order is not presently in the process of being modified and is therefore in full force and effect. Section 440.24(1), Fla.Stat. (1989); Grant-Sholk Constr. Co., Inc. v. Moore, 282 So.2d 634 (Fla.1973). We, however, reverse the writ because it does not conform to the period of temporary total disability reflected in Deputy Commissioner Daniel’s order. We remand for the trial court to issue the writ for the period of temporary total disability set out in the order being enforced and to determine interest due on unpaid sums.

Reverse and remand.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.

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

BLUE, Judge.

Maryland Casualty Company appeals the circuit court’s issuance of a writ of execution for enforcement of a worker’s compensation order. We hold the trial court had the authority to issue a writ, because the worker’s compensation order is not presently in the process of being modified and is therefore in full force and effect. Section 440.24(1), Fla.Stat. (1989); Grant-Sholk Constr. Co., Inc. v. Moore, 282 So.2d 634 (Fla.1973). We, however, reverse the writ because it does not conform to the period of temporary total disability reflected in Deputy Commissioner Daniel’s order. We remand for the trial court to issue the writ for the period of temporary total disability set out in the order being enforced and to determine interest due on unpaid sums.

Reverse and remand.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

608 So. 2d 850, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10440, 1992 WL 267003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maryland-casualty-co-v-milholin-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack