ZEP Manufacturing v. Gratzer

545 So. 2d 965, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1576, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3672, 1989 WL 72732
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 30, 1989
DocketNo. 88-1923
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 545 So. 2d 965 (ZEP Manufacturing v. Gratzer) 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
ZEP Manufacturing v. Gratzer, 545 So. 2d 965, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1576, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3672, 1989 WL 72732 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

ZEHMER, Judge.

This is an appeal from the order of July 7, 1988, awarding workers’ compensation benefits to claimant, Patricia Ann Gratzer. The employer, ZEP Manufacturing, and the carrier, Underwriters Adjusting Co., raise five issues on appeal, all of which we affirm.

The only issue requiring a brief discussion is whether the deputy commissioner erred in awarding attendant care benefits retroactively for the period prior to September 14, 1987, the date the claim for such benefits was filed. A previous hearing in the case had been held on November 18, 1985, and no such claim was made at that time or disposed of by order. Ordinarily, attendant care benefits can be awarded retroactively only when the employer and carrier have notice that such care is due. Additionally, if such benefits were ripe for adjudication at the time of the previous hearing, ordinarily they cannot be awarded retroactively past the date of the previous adjudication. But we need not reach either of these issues in this case because the record before us does not show the assertion of any defense to this claim based on lack of notice nor any objection to the admissibility of the testimony presented on the need for attendant care benefits beginning immediately after claimant left the hospital. We simply cannot determine from this record that any objection to the retroactive award was brought to the attention of the deputy commissioner, and it appears that this objection was made for the first time on appeal. We hold, therefore, that any such objections have been waived, as they cannot be presented for the first time on appeal.

AFFIRMED.

WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Amfesco Duramil Division v. Guzman
596 So. 2d 732 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
545 So. 2d 965, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1576, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3672, 1989 WL 72732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zep-manufacturing-v-gratzer-fladistctapp-1989.