Taylor v. General Masonry, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Taylor v. General Masonry, Inc.

637 So. 2d 361, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5093, 1994 WL 231645

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 1, 1994

DocketNo. 92-2561

StatusPublished

This text of 637 So. 2d 361 (Taylor v. General Masonry, Inc.) 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

Taylor v. General Masonry, Inc., 637 So. 2d 361, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5093, 1994 WL 231645 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ERVIN, Judge.

We reverse and remand the case with directions to award claimant indemnity benefits based on an average weekly wage (AWW) of $480, and its corresponding compensation rate (CR). This issue was mature and ripe for adjudication at the time the earlier September 5, 1990 compensation order was entered; therefore, the issue could not be relitigated at the subsequent hearing, which resulted in the order of June 16, 1992, awarding benefits based on a lesser AWW and CR than that on which such benefits had earlier been awarded. See City of Hialeah v. Cascardo, 443 So.2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Haycraft, 421 So.2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Hunt v. International Mineral & Chem. Corp., 410 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this decision.

JOANOS and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

ERVIN, Judge.

We reverse and remand the case with directions to award claimant indemnity benefits based on an average weekly wage (AWW) of $480, and its corresponding compensation rate (CR). This issue was mature and ripe for adjudication at the time the earlier September 5, 1990 compensation order was entered; therefore, the issue could not be relitigated at the subsequent hearing, which resulted in the order of June 16, 1992, awarding benefits based on a lesser AWW and CR than that on which such benefits had earlier been awarded. See City of Hialeah v. Cascardo, 443 So.2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Haycraft, 421 So.2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Hunt v. International Mineral & Chem. Corp., 410 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this decision.

JOANOS and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

637 So. 2d 361, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5093, 1994 WL 231645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-general-masonry-inc-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack