Shaw v. Florida Steel Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Shaw v. Florida Steel Corp.

846 So. 2d 1254, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 8724, 2003 WL 21338616

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 11, 2003

DocketNo. 1D02-533

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 846 So. 2d 1254 (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., 846 So. 2d 1254, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 8724, 2003 WL 21338616 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, claimant complains of the denial of permanent total disability benefits, the impairment rating awarded and the denial of penalties on indemnity benefits awarded; and the employer and carrier cross-appeal complaining of the refusal to permit an amendment to their witness and exhibit lists. We affirm without discussion as to all issues raised, save one. We reverse the denial of penalties on the indemnity benefits awarded because the employer and carrier neither paid the benefits within seven days of when they became due, as required by section 440.20(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), nor exercised the pay- and-investigate option provided by section 440.20(4); and because the employer and carrier failed to offer any evidence to suggest that they were unaware, as of the date on which claimant alleged the benefits were due, of facts supporting the obligation to pay those benefits. See, e.g., Eastern Indus., Inc. v. Burnham, 750 So.2d 748 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Bruno’s, Inc./Food World v. Bruner, 805 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART.

WEBSTER, PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, claimant complains of the denial of permanent total disability benefits, the impairment rating awarded and the denial of penalties on indemnity benefits awarded; and the employer and carrier cross-appeal complaining of the refusal to permit an amendment to their witness and exhibit lists. We affirm without discussion as to all issues raised, save one. We reverse the denial of penalties on the indemnity benefits awarded because the employer and carrier neither paid the benefits within seven days of when they became due, as required by section 440.20(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), nor exercised the pay- and-investigate option provided by section 440.20(4); and because the employer and carrier failed to offer any evidence to suggest that they were unaware, as of the date on which claimant alleged the benefits were due, of facts supporting the obligation to pay those benefits. See, e.g., Eastern Indus., Inc. v. Burnham, 750 So.2d 748 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Bruno’s, Inc./Food World v. Bruner, 805 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART.

WEBSTER, PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

846 So. 2d 1254, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 8724, 2003 WL 21338616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaw-v-florida-steel-corp-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack