Shaw v. Florida Steel Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Shaw v. Florida Steel Corp.

794 So. 2d 708, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12907, 2001 WL 1098262

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 13, 2001

DocketNo. 1D01-2729

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 794 So. 2d 708 (Shaw v. Florida Steel Corp.) 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

Shaw v. Florida Steel Corp., 794 So. 2d 708, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12907, 2001 WL 1098262 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order in this Workers’ Compensation case finds that the claimant is entitled to certain benefits, but does not expressly determine the amount of those benefits. Instead, the Judge of Compensation Claims encourages the parties to agree upon the exact dollar amount of the benefits found due under her order, and retains jurisdiction to enter an order requiring payment of a precise dollar amount in the event the parties are unable to reach such an agreement. We conclude that this reservation of jurisdiction renders the order nonfinal and nonappealable. See Sun Sentinel v. Petrovich, 744 So.2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Betancourt v. Sears Roebuck & Company, 693 So.2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); compare, North River Insurance Company v. Wuelling, 674 So.2d 881 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)(reservation of jurisdiction to determine amount of attorney’s fee does not render order nonfinal). We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice to the right of either party to seek review upon rendition of a final order in the proceedings below.

ALLEN, C.J., and MINER and WOLF, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The order in this Workers’ Compensation case finds that the claimant is entitled to certain benefits, but does not expressly determine the amount of those benefits. Instead, the Judge of Compensation Claims encourages the parties to agree upon the exact dollar amount of the benefits found due under her order, and retains jurisdiction to enter an order requiring payment of a precise dollar amount in the event the parties are unable to reach such an agreement. We conclude that this reservation of jurisdiction renders the order nonfinal and nonappealable. See Sun Sentinel v. Petrovich, 744 So.2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Betancourt v. Sears Roebuck & Company, 693 So.2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); compare, North River Insurance Company v. Wuelling, 674 So.2d 881 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)(reservation of jurisdiction to determine amount of attorney’s fee does not render order nonfinal). We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice to the right of either party to seek review upon rendition of a final order in the proceedings below.

ALLEN, C.J., and MINER and WOLF, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

794 So. 2d 708, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12907, 2001 WL 1098262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaw-v-florida-steel-corp-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack