Moore v. Wadkins

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moore v. Wadkins

557 So. 2d 694, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1711

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 14, 1990

DocketNos. 89-1990, 89-2972

StatusPublished

This text of 557 So. 2d 694 (Moore v. Wadkins) 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

Moore v. Wadkins, 557 So. 2d 694, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1711 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The employer/carrier seek review in case number 89-1990 of a workers’ compensation order that awarded death benefits to the surviving parents of Allan Shane Wad-kins. Subsequently the Judge of Compensation Claims also awarded attorney’s fees in connection with the claim and that order was also timely appealed in case number 89-2972. The cases were consolidated by order of this court. Now appellants move [695]*695for remand, showing that transcripts of the hearings held on attorney’s fees cannot be prepared and the parties have been unable to create a statement of evidence in accordance with Fla.R.App.P. 9.200(b)(4). Accordingly, we sever the previously-consolidated cases and reverse and remand case number 89-2972 for a hearing de novo, see Arnold Lumber Co. v. Harris, 469 So.2d 786 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

Time for service of appellants’ initial brief in ease number 89-1990 is extended to 30 days from this date.

ERVIN, WENTWORTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The employer/carrier seek review in case number 89-1990 of a workers’ compensation order that awarded death benefits to the surviving parents of Allan Shane Wad-kins. Subsequently the Judge of Compensation Claims also awarded attorney’s fees in connection with the claim and that order was also timely appealed in case number 89-2972. The cases were consolidated by order of this court. Now appellants move [695]*695for remand, showing that transcripts of the hearings held on attorney’s fees cannot be prepared and the parties have been unable to create a statement of evidence in accordance with Fla.R.App.P. 9.200(b)(4). Accordingly, we sever the previously-consolidated cases and reverse and remand case number 89-2972 for a hearing de novo, see Arnold Lumber Co. v. Harris, 469 So.2d 786 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

Time for service of appellants’ initial brief in ease number 89-1990 is extended to 30 days from this date.

ERVIN, WENTWORTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 So. 2d 694, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-wadkins-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack