Office Depot v. Ortega

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Office Depot v. Ortega

931 So. 2d 1051, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 10850, 2006 WL 1735115

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 27, 2006

DocketNo. 1D04-5625

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 931 So. 2d 1051 (Office Depot v. Ortega) 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

Office Depot v. Ortega, 931 So. 2d 1051, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 10850, 2006 WL 1735115 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Office Depot, the employer/carrier (E/ C), appeals a final workers’ compensation order directing it to pay claimant permanent total disability (PTD) benefits, together with supplemental benefits. Claimant, Anna Ortega, cross-appeals the denial of her claim for penalties, contending the judge of compensation claims (JCC) erred in finding the E/C timely filed its notice of denial within the statutory period provided in section 440.192(8), Florida Statutes. We summarily affirm the award of PTD benefits, concluding that the JCC’s findings were based on competent, substantial evidence, and his interpretation of the applicable statutes governing a determination of PTD was correct. As to his denial of the claim for penalties, it clearly appears from the record that the employer did not file its notice of denial within 14 days after its receipt of the petition for benefits, as required by section 440.192(8), and the denial is reversed. See also Kilbourne & Sons v. Kilbourne, 677 So.2d 855, 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

ERVIN, PADOVANO, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Office Depot, the employer/carrier (E/ C), appeals a final workers’ compensation order directing it to pay claimant permanent total disability (PTD) benefits, together with supplemental benefits. Claimant, Anna Ortega, cross-appeals the denial of her claim for penalties, contending the judge of compensation claims (JCC) erred in finding the E/C timely filed its notice of denial within the statutory period provided in section 440.192(8), Florida Statutes. We summarily affirm the award of PTD benefits, concluding that the JCC’s findings were based on competent, substantial evidence, and his interpretation of the applicable statutes governing a determination of PTD was correct. As to his denial of the claim for penalties, it clearly appears from the record that the employer did not file its notice of denial within 14 days after its receipt of the petition for benefits, as required by section 440.192(8), and the denial is reversed. See also Kilbourne & Sons v. Kilbourne, 677 So.2d 855, 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

ERVIN, PADOVANO, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

931 So. 2d 1051, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 10850, 2006 WL 1735115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-depot-v-ortega-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack