Sunland Development Center at Fort Myers v. Euans

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sunland Development Center at Fort Myers v. Euans

392 So. 2d 300, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18299

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 19, 1980

DocketNo. UU-34

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 392 So. 2d 300 (Sunland Development Center at Fort Myers v. Euans) 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

Sunland Development Center at Fort Myers v. Euans, 392 So. 2d 300, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18299 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Employer/carrier appeals a workers’ compensation order appointing a physician for a routine examination and evaluation of the claimant under circumstances indicating that is not the sole point in controversy between the parties. We conclude that such an order disposes of incidental aspects rather than an “essential element” of the claim. See Patrylo v. Nautilus Hotel, 142 So.2d 279 (Fla.1962). The order appealed is therefore interlocutory in nature under standards previously applicable. Dade County School Board v. Hill, IRC Order 2-3414 (April 26, 1978), cert. dismissed, 366 So.2d 880 (Fla.1978); Peters v. General Telephone Co., IRC Order 2-3153 (May 16, 1977); Lehman v. Goodwin, 7 FCR 55 (1972).

Appeals from interlocutory orders in workers’ compensation cases are governed by the provisions of Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3). Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Scott, 386 So.2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Rule 9.130(a)(3) contains no provision which would authorize review of the order appealed in the present case; the order is thus not reviewable except in connection with an appeal from a final order disposing of the claim.

The appeal is dismissed without prejudice to appellant’s right to raise the issue upon review of a final order.

ERVIN and SHAW, JJ., concur.

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

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Employer/carrier appeals a workers’ compensation order appointing a physician for a routine examination and evaluation of the claimant under circumstances indicating that is not the sole point in controversy between the parties. We conclude that such an order disposes of incidental aspects rather than an “essential element” of the claim. See Patrylo v. Nautilus Hotel, 142 So.2d 279 (Fla.1962). The order appealed is therefore interlocutory in nature under standards previously applicable. Dade County School Board v. Hill, IRC Order 2-3414 (April 26, 1978), cert. dismissed, 366 So.2d 880 (Fla.1978); Peters v. General Telephone Co., IRC Order 2-3153 (May 16, 1977); Lehman v. Goodwin, 7 FCR 55 (1972).

Appeals from interlocutory orders in workers’ compensation cases are governed by the provisions of Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3). Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Scott, 386 So.2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Rule 9.130(a)(3) contains no provision which would authorize review of the order appealed in the present case; the order is thus not reviewable except in connection with an appeal from a final order disposing of the claim.

The appeal is dismissed without prejudice to appellant’s right to raise the issue upon review of a final order.

ERVIN and SHAW, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 So. 2d 300, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sunland-development-center-at-fort-myers-v-euans-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack