Stanley Steemer International, Inc. v. Smith

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stanley Steemer International, Inc. v. Smith

139 So. 3d 507, 2014 WL 2566495, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8791

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 9, 2014

DocketNo. 1D13-773

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 So. 3d 507 (Stanley Steemer International, Inc. v. Smith) 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

Stanley Steemer International, Inc. v. Smith, 139 So. 3d 507, 2014 WL 2566495, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8791 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Both the Employer/Carrier (E/C) and Claimant, through appeal and cross-appeal, challenge an order by the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) awarding Claimant attendant care benefits, along with attorney’s fees. Finding no error in the JCC’s rejection of the E/C’s affirmative defense based on misrepresentation and no merit to the arguments raised concerning the award of attendant care benefits, we affirm these issues without further discussion. Because the JCC retained jurisdiction over the amount of attorney’s fees and entitlement to costs, the issues relating to these claims are not ripe for appellate review and we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction those portions of the appeal and cross-appeal relating to the awards of fees and costs. See Zampell Refractories, Inc., v. Welch, 61 So.3d 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (dismissing cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction where JCC reserved jurisdiction on fee amount). In all other respects, the order on appeal is AFFIRMED.

VAN NORTWICK, PADOVANO, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Both the Employer/Carrier (E/C) and Claimant, through appeal and cross-appeal, challenge an order by the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) awarding Claimant attendant care benefits, along with attorney’s fees. Finding no error in the JCC’s rejection of the E/C’s affirmative defense based on misrepresentation and no merit to the arguments raised concerning the award of attendant care benefits, we affirm these issues without further discussion. Because the JCC retained jurisdiction over the amount of attorney’s fees and entitlement to costs, the issues relating to these claims are not ripe for appellate review and we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction those portions of the appeal and cross-appeal relating to the awards of fees and costs. See Zampell Refractories, Inc., v. Welch, 61 So.3d 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (dismissing cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction where JCC reserved jurisdiction on fee amount). In all other respects, the order on appeal is AFFIRMED.

VAN NORTWICK, PADOVANO, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 So. 3d 507, 2014 WL 2566495, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanley-steemer-international-inc-v-smith-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack