Sunny Pines Convalescent Center v. Walters

422 So. 2d 1079
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 6, 1982
DocketAM-163
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 422 So. 2d 1079 (Sunny Pines Convalescent Center v. Walters) 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
Sunny Pines Convalescent Center v. Walters, 422 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

422 So.2d 1079 (1982)

SUNNY PINES CONVALESCENT CENTER and Hewitt Coleman & Associates, Inc., Appellants,
v.
Mary WALTERS, Appellee.

No. AM-163.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 6, 1982.

Thomas M. Burke and Daniel DeCiccio, of Rumberger, Kirk, Caldwell, Cabaniss & Burke, P.A., Orlando, for appellants.

Andrea L. Cain and Irvin A. Meyers, of Meyers & Mooney, P.A., Orlando, for appellee.

SHIVERS, Judge.

The Employer/Carrier (E/C) appeal the award of temporary total disability (TTD) benefits from May 31, 1980, to September 30, 1981. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

There is competent and substantial evidence in the record to support the finding by the Deputy Commissioner (DC) that claimant was temporarily and totally disabled during the period for which temporary total disability benefits were awarded. However, the record reveals that claimant was employed as a maid for a short time during the period for which TTD benefits were awarded. On this basis, we affirm the award of TTD benefits during the period between May 31, 1980 and September 30, 1981, except for the period during which claimant was employed. Since the record does not reveal precisely how long claimant was employed or how much she earned during the period between May 31, 1980 and September 30, 1981, we must remand the matter to the DC with instructions that he affirm the award of TTD benefits except for any periods that claimant was employed.

We also affirm the DC's decision to retain jurisdiction for the purpose of determining a reasonable attorney's fee. We do so because, with respect to that issue, the order is non-final and, as such, non-appealable.

ERVIN and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.

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

Related

M.M., etc. v. Florida Department of Children and Families
189 So. 3d 134 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2016)
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAM. v. Monroe
744 So. 2d 1163 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Wometco Enterprises v. Cordoves
650 So. 2d 1117 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Clay Hyder Trucking v. Lastinger
586 So. 2d 1082 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Hobbs v. Hobbs
518 So. 2d 439 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
City of Miami v. Simpson
496 So. 2d 899 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Adelman Pipe & Steel Co. v. Vasquez
487 So. 2d 51 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
MONROE CTY. SHERIFF'S DEPT., ETC. v. Ruth
424 So. 2d 905 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
422 So. 2d 1079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sunny-pines-convalescent-center-v-walters-fladistctapp-1982.