Ralston Purina v. Tancak

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ralston Purina v. Tancak

508 So. 2d 549, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1483, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8947

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 1987

DocketNo. BN-183

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 508 So. 2d 549 (Ralston Purina v. Tancak) 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

Ralston Purina v. Tancak, 508 So. 2d 549, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1483, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8947 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Employer/carrier appeal a workers’ compensation order by which it was determined that claimant sustained a compensable injury. It was further found that employer/carrier is responsible for payment of medical bills, and jurisdiction was reserved by agreement of the parties on the pending claim for temporary disability and wage loss benefits. In accordance with the parties’ agreement to reserve jurisdiction the order thus did not. dispose of all matured issues in controversy and is therefore interlocutory and not immediately reviewable by appeal. See Metropolitan Life v. Antonucci, 469 So.2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Town of Palm Beach v. Watts, 426 So.2d 1312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed sua sponte without prejudice to seek review by subsequent appeal from a final order.

MILLS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

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

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Employer/carrier appeal a workers’ compensation order by which it was determined that claimant sustained a compensable injury. It was further found that employer/carrier is responsible for payment of medical bills, and jurisdiction was reserved by agreement of the parties on the pending claim for temporary disability and wage loss benefits. In accordance with the parties’ agreement to reserve jurisdiction the order thus did not. dispose of all matured issues in controversy and is therefore interlocutory and not immediately reviewable by appeal. See Metropolitan Life v. Antonucci, 469 So.2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Town of Palm Beach v. Watts, 426 So.2d 1312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed sua sponte without prejudice to seek review by subsequent appeal from a final order.

MILLS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 So. 2d 549, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1483, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ralston-purina-v-tancak-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack