Florida Power Corp. v. Hamilton
| Decision Date | 08 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-995,92-995 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D930 FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Fred HAMILTON, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bernard J. Zimmerman and Charles H. Leo of Zimmerman, Shuffield, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.
Johnnye L. Friedrich and Leon M. Boyajan, II, P.A., Inverness, for appellee.
The employer appeals a workers' compensation order by which the claimant was awarded temporary total disability benefits. Because the claimant did not specifically request this class of benefits, and the matter was not otherwise clearly placed at issue, we reverse the award.
Claims were filed for permanent total disability or wage loss benefits, with the parties stipulating that the claimant had attained maximum medical improvement. The claimant did not appear at a hearing where medical and vocational evidence was presented. The judge noted that he was thus unable to directly evaluate the claimant's subjective complaints and credibility. Finding the medical evidence of disability to be insufficient, the judge determined that an additional medical opinion should be obtained as to certain questions including the advisability of further surgical intervention. The judge therefore ordered an additional examination and evaluation, while reserving jurisdiction as to "all issues presented."
The examining doctor prepared a report and was deposed by the parties. These documents were received as the court's exhibit, and the parties declined to present other evidence. The judge then entered the appealed order, accepting the examining doctor's recommendation for further evaluation and possible surgery. Rejecting the parties' stipulation as to maximum medical improvement, the judge determined that the claimant remains temporarily totally disabled, and awarded such benefits.
The judge was entitled to reject the stipulation as to maximum medical improvement upon the receipt of contrary evidence. See Leeds Shoes v. Cucuzza, 429 So.2d 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). But neither this circumstance nor the reservation of jurisdiction in connection with the additional medical examination expanded the scope of the hearing. Leeds Shoes; see also Allman v. Meredith Corp., 451 So.2d 957, 959 n. 1, (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Although a matter may be placed at issue by the presentation of evidence specifically directed to the dispute, see Dailey v. General Accounting Machs., 411 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the evidence in the present case was not such as to necessarily expand the scope of the hearing.
Due process concerns preclude a ruling on matters which have not been placed at issue, as the parties are entitled to notice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commercial Carrier Corp. v. LaPointe, 97-2631.
...this class of benefits, and the matter was not otherwise clearly placed at issue, we reverse the award." Florida Power Corp. v. Hamilton, 617 So.2d 333, 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). See also Lakeside Baptist Church v. Jones, 714 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). An order that is not in accord wit......
-
Town of Jupiter v. Andreff
...not require written notice. See Southeast Recycling v. Cottongim, 639 So.2d 155, 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Florida Power Corp. v. Hamilton, 617 So.2d 333, 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Munroe Mem. Hosp. v. Thompson, 388 So.2d 1338, 1339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Accordingly, given the purpose of the s......
-
Salinas v. C.A.T. Concrete, LLC, Case No. 1D09-4208 (Fla. App. 5/21/2010)
...been placed at issue, since the parties are entitled to notice so that they may fairly present their case. Florida Power Corp. v. Hamilton, 617 So. 2d 333, 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). An order that is not in accord with the understanding with which the workers' compensation hearing was underta......
-
Couture Farms v. Triton Intern., Inc., 96-722
...denied their motions. See Dawson v. Saada, 608 So.2d 806 (Fla.1992); Scull v. State, 569 So.2d 1251 (Fla.1990); Florida Power Corp. v. Hamilton, 617 So.2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Lastly, Couture Farms' appeal of the denial of its Rule 1.070(i) motion to dismiss for failure to effect servic......