North Alabama Transportation v. Steele

District Court of Appeal of Florida

North Alabama Transportation v. Steele

664 So. 2d 318, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12664, 1995 WL 723550

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 8, 1995

DocketNo. 95-3121

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 664 So. 2d 318 (North Alabama Transportation v. Steele) 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

North Alabama Transportation v. Steele, 664 So. 2d 318, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12664, 1995 WL 723550 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

North Alabama Transportation appeals a workers’ compensation order establishing subject matter jurisdiction on a claim for benefits based on an injury which occurred in Florida. Although this was a nonfinal order and the appeal was not filed in accordance with the dictates of Hines Electric v. McClure, 616 So.2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), the procedures specified therein have been superseded by the recent amendments to Florida Rule of Workers’ Compensation Procedure 4.160, as approved and adopted in In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Workers’ Compensation Procedure, 664 So.2d 945 (Fla.1995). Applying these amendments to pending cases in this court, we conclude that the present case is now a prop[319]*319er appeal. However, on the merits this case is controlled by Philyaw v. Arthur H. Fulton, Inc., 569 So.2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). See also Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 306 U.S. 493, 59 S.Ct. 629, 83 L.Ed. 940 (1939). The appealed order is therefore affirmed.

ALLEN and DAVIS, JJ., and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

North Alabama Transportation appeals a workers’ compensation order establishing subject matter jurisdiction on a claim for benefits based on an injury which occurred in Florida. Although this was a nonfinal order and the appeal was not filed in accordance with the dictates of Hines Electric v. McClure, 616 So.2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), the procedures specified therein have been superseded by the recent amendments to Florida Rule of Workers’ Compensation Procedure 4.160, as approved and adopted in In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Workers’ Compensation Procedure, 664 So.2d 945 (Fla.1995). Applying these amendments to pending cases in this court, we conclude that the present case is now a prop[319]*319er appeal. However, on the merits this case is controlled by Philyaw v. Arthur H. Fulton, Inc., 569 So.2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). See also Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 306 U.S. 493, 59 S.Ct. 629, 83 L.Ed. 940 (1939). The appealed order is therefore affirmed.

ALLEN and DAVIS, JJ., and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

664 So. 2d 318, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12664, 1995 WL 723550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-alabama-transportation-v-steele-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack