Payne v. Griner-Woodruff, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Payne v. Griner-Woodruff, Inc.

462 So. 2d 518, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 102, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 11877

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 3, 1985·No. No. AZ-372·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

SHIVERS, Judge.

Claimant Roger Payne appeals workers’ compensation order abating claimant’s wage-loss claim and hearing thereon. We reverse and remand.

Claimant Payne was initially awarded wage-loss benefits in an order which was appealed to our court in Case No. AX-148. 457 So.2d 1120. While that appeal was pending, Payne filed claim for wage-loss benefits for a subsequent time period. The deputy commissioner abated the claim for the subsequent period, stating that the nature of the claim, as well as the specific defenses raised by the employer/carrier, are identical to those raised at the prior hearing.

Although we recently ruled in Case No. AX-148 that claimant is entitled to wage-loss benefits on that earlier claim, this does not furnish the rationale for our holding here. Case No. AX-148 and the instant case (No. AZ-372) are for two separate periods of entitlement to wage-loss. Claimant is entitled to proceed under Section 440.25, Florida Statutes, and to have his wage-loss claim for this subsequent period timely heard. The deputy erred in abating the claim and the hearing on this claim.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

[519]*519WENTWORTH, J., concurs. MILLS, J., dissents with opinion.

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

SHIVERS, Judge.

Claimant Roger Payne appeals workers’ compensation order abating claimant’s wage-loss claim and hearing thereon. We reverse and remand.

Claimant Payne was initially awarded wage-loss benefits in an order which was appealed to our court in Case No. AX-148. 457 So.2d 1120. While that appeal was pending, Payne filed claim for wage-loss benefits for a subsequent time period. The deputy commissioner abated the claim for the subsequent period, stating that the nature of the claim, as well as the specific defenses raised by the employer/carrier, are identical to those raised at the prior hearing.

Although we recently ruled in Case No. AX-148 that claimant is entitled to wage-loss benefits on that earlier claim, this does not furnish the rationale for our holding here. Case No. AX-148 and the instant case (No. AZ-372) are for two separate periods of entitlement to wage-loss. Claimant is entitled to proceed under Section 440.25, Florida Statutes, and to have his wage-loss claim for this subsequent period timely heard. The deputy erred in abating the claim and the hearing on this claim.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

[519]*519WENTWORTH, J., concurs. MILLS, J., dissents with opinion.

Payne v. Griner-Woodruff, Inc., 462 So. 2d 518, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 102, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 11877 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

462 So. 2d 518 (Payne v. Griner-Woodruff, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related