Doll House, Inc. v. Porter, AP-344
| Decision Date | 24 August 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. AP-344,AP-344 |
| Citation | 436 So.2d 425 |
| Parties | The DOLL HOUSE, INC., and Argonaut Insurance Company, Appellants, v. John Douglas PORTER, TCB, Inc., d/b/a Sugars, and The Travelers Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Wendell J. Kiser, P.A., and William G. Berzak of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, Orlando, for appellants.
Randy Fischer of Haas, Boehm, Brown, Rigdon & Seacrest, Orlando, for appellee John Douglas Porter.
Robert G. Brightman, Orlando, for appellees TCB, Inc. and The Travelers Ins. Co.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order of the deputy commissioner finding that claimant sustained an industrial accident arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment with The Doll House, Inc. and that there was no agreement between The Doll House, Inc. and T.C.B., Inc., d/b/a Sugars, to share claimant as a "loaned employee," so that claimant was not an employee of T.C.B., Inc. at the time of the incident. In his order, the deputy retained jurisdiction to hold further hearings as necessary to determine what benefits were due claimant as a result of the accident; the parties stipulated that the hearing which resulted in the order appealed from would be limited to the sole issue of compensability of the claim, so as to determine whether claimant sustained injury in the course and scope of employment with either The Doll House, Inc. or T.C.B., Inc.
An order determining compensability only and reserving jurisdiction to determine benefits has generally been found to be a non-reviewable, non-final order. See, Town of Palm Beach v. Watts, 426 So.2d 1312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); The Crown Hotel v. Friedman, 420 So.2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Ray Roofing Co., Inc. v. Young, 419 So.2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Special Disability Trust Fund v. Motor and Compressor Company, 417 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Mills Electrical Contractors v. Marthens, 417 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); General Electric Company v. Hawkins, 413 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); and The Wash House v. Tucker, 413 So.2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). However, because the order sought to be reviewed results in removal of one party, T.C.B., Inc., from further proceedings, we elect to treat the appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari and to review the merits of the order below.
Competent substantial evidence in the record supports the deputy's findings of fact and his conclusion that claimant was within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hines Elec. v. McClure
...compensation cases. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Sloan, 410 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).7 But see Doll House, Inc. v. Porter, 436 So.2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (certiorari review allowed on coverage question, but only because the effect of order was to totally remove a party......
- Washington Capital Corp. v. Milandco, Ltd., Inc.
-
ESI v. Taylor
...(Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The appellants have not demonstrated a basis for review by certiorari. This case is unlike Doll House, Inc. v. Porter, 436 So.2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), where one party was removed from the case and jurisdiction was reserved for additional hearings "as necessary." The ......
-
J.L. Manta, Inc. v. Ramos
... ... See The Doll House, Inc., v. Porter, TCB, ... 436 So.2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). We ... ...