Nova Sales, Inc. v. Tierman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nova Sales, Inc. v. Tierman

576 So. 2d 754, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1736, 1991 WL 27165

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 20, 1991

DocketNo. 89-3087

StatusPublished

This text of 576 So. 2d 754 (Nova Sales, Inc. v. Tierman) 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

Nova Sales, Inc. v. Tierman, 576 So. 2d 754, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1736, 1991 WL 27165 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

NIMMONS, Judge.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) initially found that the employer/carrier did not file a notice to controvert as required by Section 440.20, Florida Statutes (1989), and that the claimant was entitled to a penalty assessment. Subsequent to that order, the JCC issued a clarifying order in which he found that the notice to controvert was timely filed. Pursuant to agreement of the parties, the record on appeal was supplemented to include such order. Based on that order, we reverse the penalty assessment.

We have examined the remaining issues raised by the employer/carrier and find them to be without merit.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

ERVIN and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

NIMMONS, Judge.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) initially found that the employer/carrier did not file a notice to controvert as required by Section 440.20, Florida Statutes (1989), and that the claimant was entitled to a penalty assessment. Subsequent to that order, the JCC issued a clarifying order in which he found that the notice to controvert was timely filed. Pursuant to agreement of the parties, the record on appeal was supplemented to include such order. Based on that order, we reverse the penalty assessment.

We have examined the remaining issues raised by the employer/carrier and find them to be without merit.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

ERVIN and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

576 So. 2d 754, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1736, 1991 WL 27165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nova-sales-inc-v-tierman-fladistctapp-1991.