Woolworth's Restaurant v. Cubillos

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Woolworth's Restaurant v. Cubillos

608 So. 2d 895, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11541, 1992 WL 324865

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 10, 1992

DocketNo. 91-4022

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 608 So. 2d 895 (Woolworth's Restaurant v. Cubillos) 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

Woolworth's Restaurant v. Cubillos, 608 So. 2d 895, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11541, 1992 WL 324865 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, the employer/carrier (e/c) challenge an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) finding claimant’s injuries compensable and awarding benefits and penalties. Competent substantial evidence supports com-pensability, and we affirm the JCC’s finding without further elaboration. However, the award of penalties must be reversed and remanded for further consideration in light of the following.

Penalties should not be imposed where the e/c timely file a notice to controvert. § 440.20(6) and (7), Fla.Stat. (Supp. 1990); Glades General Hospital v. Sullenger, 584 So.2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Although the record in the instant case does not contain a notice to controvert, a portion of the JCC’s order states that “[t]his claim was totally controverted.” Because no explanation is offered, we must reverse the award of penalties and remand the case for clarification of the JCC’s order as we did in Four Quarters Habitat, Inc. v. Miller, 405 So.2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). On remand, the JCC should state explicitly whether the e/c sufficiently controverted the claim, or, if the claim was not timely controverted, whether e/c have a valid excuse for not doing so.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED for reconsideration.

MINER, ALLEN and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, the employer/carrier (e/c) challenge an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) finding claimant’s injuries compensable and awarding benefits and penalties. Competent substantial evidence supports com-pensability, and we affirm the JCC’s finding without further elaboration. However, the award of penalties must be reversed and remanded for further consideration in light of the following.

Penalties should not be imposed where the e/c timely file a notice to controvert. § 440.20(6) and (7), Fla.Stat. (Supp. 1990); Glades General Hospital v. Sullenger, 584 So.2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Although the record in the instant case does not contain a notice to controvert, a portion of the JCC’s order states that “[t]his claim was totally controverted.” Because no explanation is offered, we must reverse the award of penalties and remand the case for clarification of the JCC’s order as we did in Four Quarters Habitat, Inc. v. Miller, 405 So.2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). On remand, the JCC should state explicitly whether the e/c sufficiently controverted the claim, or, if the claim was not timely controverted, whether e/c have a valid excuse for not doing so.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED for reconsideration.

MINER, ALLEN and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

608 So. 2d 895, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11541, 1992 WL 324865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woolworths-restaurant-v-cubillos-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack