Miami-Dade County v. Mitchell

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Miami-Dade County v. Mitchell

835 So. 2d 1196, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 19338, 2002 WL 31887710

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 30, 2002

DocketNo. 1D02-0876

StatusPublished

This text of 835 So. 2d 1196 (Miami-Dade County v. Mitchell) 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

Miami-Dade County v. Mitchell, 835 So. 2d 1196, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 19338, 2002 WL 31887710 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case has been before this court twice before. See Miami-Dade County v. Mitchell, 754 So.2d 773, 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (remanding for reconsideration in light of Closet Maid v. Sykes, 763 So.2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)(en banc), to determine whether the workplace accident was the major contributing cause of the claimant’s need for future medical treatment)(“Mitchell I”); Mitchell v. Metro Dade, 797 So.2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)(re-manding for the Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”) to afford claimant an opportunity to testify in person)(“Mitchell II”). In Mitchell II, the claimant appealed the JCC’s denial of her claim for future medical benefits. The JCC’s denial was based on a determination that the workplace accident was not the major contributing cause of the need for future medical treatment.

Just before the hearing on remand after Mitchell II was to begin, the claimant dismissed her claim without prejudice. The claimant alleges this action deprived the JCC of jurisdiction to take any further action on her claim. Appellant argues that claimant’s voluntary dismissal of her petition was untimely. We agree with Appellant and reverse.

A claim or petition may be dismissed by the claimant or petitioner without an order by filing a notice or stipulation of voluntary dismissal at any time before the final hearing begins, or during the final hearing before the claimant rests. Fla. R. Work. Comp. P. 4.075(d). The final hearing began and claimant rested her case when it was tried before Mitchell I. Therefore, claimant’s voluntary dismissal is not timely.

To allow claimant to take a voluntary dismissal after remand, under the circumstances of this case, would allow the claimant the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, a benefit not afforded to other claimants or contemplated by the rule. See Middlebrooks v. St. Johns Water Management District, 529 So.2d 1167, 1169-70 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)(holding that withdrawal of application for a consumptive use permit was not timely under the voluntary dismissal rule, and would “afford him the advantage of 20/20 hindsight” that no other party under the rule is allowed to have).

Because the claimant’s voluntary dismissal is not timely, and therefore is ineffective, we remand to the JCC to afford the claimant an opportunity to testify in person according to Mitchell II.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

BARFIELD, MINER and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case has been before this court twice before. See Miami-Dade County v. Mitchell, 754 So.2d 773, 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (remanding for reconsideration in light of Closet Maid v. Sykes, 763 So.2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)(en banc), to determine whether the workplace accident was the major contributing cause of the claimant’s need for future medical treatment)(“Mitchell I”); Mitchell v. Metro Dade, 797 So.2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)(re-manding for the Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”) to afford claimant an opportunity to testify in person)(“Mitchell II”). In Mitchell II, the claimant appealed the JCC’s denial of her claim for future medical benefits. The JCC’s denial was based on a determination that the workplace accident was not the major contributing cause of the need for future medical treatment.

Just before the hearing on remand after Mitchell II was to begin, the claimant dismissed her claim without prejudice. The claimant alleges this action deprived the JCC of jurisdiction to take any further action on her claim. Appellant argues that claimant’s voluntary dismissal of her petition was untimely. We agree with Appellant and reverse.

A claim or petition may be dismissed by the claimant or petitioner without an order by filing a notice or stipulation of voluntary dismissal at any time before the final hearing begins, or during the final hearing before the claimant rests. Fla. R. Work. Comp. P. 4.075(d). The final hearing began and claimant rested her case when it was tried before Mitchell I. Therefore, claimant’s voluntary dismissal is not timely.

To allow claimant to take a voluntary dismissal after remand, under the circumstances of this case, would allow the claimant the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, a benefit not afforded to other claimants or contemplated by the rule. See Middlebrooks v. St. Johns Water Management District, 529 So.2d 1167, 1169-70 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)(holding that withdrawal of application for a consumptive use permit was not timely under the voluntary dismissal rule, and would “afford him the advantage of 20/20 hindsight” that no other party under the rule is allowed to have).

Because the claimant’s voluntary dismissal is not timely, and therefore is ineffective, we remand to the JCC to afford the claimant an opportunity to testify in person according to Mitchell II.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

BARFIELD, MINER and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

835 So. 2d 1196, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 19338, 2002 WL 31887710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miami-dade-county-v-mitchell-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack