Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Rippy
Decision Date | 18 July 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 1D10–5781.,1D10–5781. |
Citation | 67 So.3d 1122 |
Parties | FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and York Claims Service, Inc., Appellants,v.Donna K. (Ellison) RIPPY, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michele E. Ready of Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder & Carson, LLP, Miami, for Appellants.Bill McCabe, Longwood, and Anthony J. Salzman, Gainesville, for Appellee.PER CURIAM.
In this workers' compensation case, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) filed a motion seeking to terminate Claimant's entitlement to benefits under chapter 440 on grounds Claimant violated section 440.105(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2006), and thus, pursuant to section 440.09(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), she was no longer entitled to any benefits. No petition for benefits was pending when the E/C filed its motion. Because we conclude the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) lacked jurisdiction to address the E/C's Motion to Terminate Benefits, we quash the order on appeal and remand with directions that the motion be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Polk County v. Sofka, 702 So.2d 1243, 1245 (Fla.1997) ( ).
In Polston v. Hurricane Island Outward Bound, 920 So.2d 766 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), this court reversed the JCC's finding she had jurisdiction to entertain the E/C's petition for benefits which requested Id. at 766–67. The determination that the JCC lacked jurisdiction was based on “the absence of a pending petition for benefits filed by Polston.” Id. at 767. The rules of procedure define a petition for benefits as “a pleading invoking the jurisdiction of the OJCC and subject to the requirements of Sections 440.192(1) through (4), Florida Statutes.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 60Q–6.102(1). Section 440.192 establishes the requirements for the filing of a petition for benefits, specifically restricting the filing to “any employee.”
A JCC has no powers beyond those conferred by the statute. See Pace v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sims Crane & Equip. Co. v. Preciado
...death benefit entitlement on the E/C's motion where no individual had filed a claim requesting the payment of such benefits); Rippy, 67 So.3d at 1123 (holding jurisdiction of is invoked with filing of PFB and the E/C has no statutory right to file PFB); Polston, 920 So.2d at 767; Simpson v.......
-
Hamm v. Pmi Emp. Leasing & Comprehensive Ins. Solutions, 1D13–4895.
...has no jurisdiction over this affirmative defense in the absence of a pending PFB filed by the claimant. See Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Rippy, 67 So.3d 1122, 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding jurisdiction of JCC is invoked with filing of PFB and employer/carrier has no statutory right to file......
-
Douglas v. State , 1D11–1254.
......See Colombo v. State, 972 So.2d 1101, 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“[A]ffirmative misadvice of counsel regarding the ......