Sparton Electronics v. Heath

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sparton Electronics v. Heath

414 So. 2d 642, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20157

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 2, 1982

DocketNo. AG-199

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 414 So. 2d 642 (Sparton Electronics v. Heath) 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

Sparton Electronics v. Heath, 414 So. 2d 642, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20157 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

MILLS, Judge.

The employer/carrier (E/C) appeal a compensation order finding the claimant [643]*643entitled to temporary total disability (TTD) benefits through the date of maximum medical improvement, wage loss benefits thereafter, and costs. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support a finding of wage loss. Since wage loss benefits were properly obtained, costs were assessable against the E/C. Section 440.34(2), Florida Statutes (1979).

The E/C contend that insufficient notice of the claim for TTD was given. We agree and reverse the award of TTD benefits. The claimant filed a “shotgun” claim identifying TTD as one of the benefits sought. This, however, does not give the E/C notice that TTD will be litigated at some specific hearing. The notice of hearing and application for hearing must provide this, Orin Cummings Construction Co. v. Beckman, 395 So.2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Unfortunately, neither of these items is in the record on appeal. Nonetheless, the claimant does not dispute that neither of these identifies TTD as an issue for the hearing. Since such notice is required, the award of TTD was error.

McCORD, J., and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

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

MILLS, Judge.

The employer/carrier (E/C) appeal a compensation order finding the claimant [643]*643entitled to temporary total disability (TTD) benefits through the date of maximum medical improvement, wage loss benefits thereafter, and costs. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support a finding of wage loss. Since wage loss benefits were properly obtained, costs were assessable against the E/C. Section 440.34(2), Florida Statutes (1979).

The E/C contend that insufficient notice of the claim for TTD was given. We agree and reverse the award of TTD benefits. The claimant filed a “shotgun” claim identifying TTD as one of the benefits sought. This, however, does not give the E/C notice that TTD will be litigated at some specific hearing. The notice of hearing and application for hearing must provide this, Orin Cummings Construction Co. v. Beckman, 395 So.2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Unfortunately, neither of these items is in the record on appeal. Nonetheless, the claimant does not dispute that neither of these identifies TTD as an issue for the hearing. Since such notice is required, the award of TTD was error.

McCORD, J., and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

414 So. 2d 642, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sparton-electronics-v-heath-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack