J.L. Manta, Inc. v. Ramos
| Decision Date | 12 April 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-350,87-350 |
| Citation | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1444,526 So.2d 919 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1444, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 918 J.L. MANTA, INC., and Commercial Union Insurance Co., Appellants, v. Charles RAMOS and Wausau Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert P. Byelick of Lyle & Skipper, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellants.
Anthony V. Cortese of Matusek, Ogden, McKnight & Hudson, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellees.
Appellants; J.L. Manta, Inc. the employer, and Commercial Union Insurance Company, one of two carriers involved, appeal a non-final workers' compensation order.
Appellants raise the following two issues for our review: (1) whether the deputy commissioner erred as a matter of law and of fact in finding that the claimant had Claimant Charles Ramos worked for appellant Manta in construction projects at different sites in the United States and overseas since 1977. In 1981 or 1982, claimant moved from California to Florida and worked for the employer at construction sites at the naval station and air base in Jacksonville, Florida. He also worked at a sewage plant in Orlando, Florida, and purchased a home in Tarpon Springs, Florida.
entered into an employment contract with the employer in the State of Florida, therefore meeting the requirements of section 440.09, Florida Statutes, and entitling the claimant to compensation under the Florida Workers' Compensation Law; and (2) whether the order of the deputy commissioner is supported by competent substantial evidence in determining that carrier No. 1 has coverage for employer in the State of Florida, rather than carrier No. 2, who held a workers' compensation employer's liability insurance policy which specifically covered the Intermountain Power Project in Delta, Utah.
While finishing his duties in Florida he was requested by Mr. Frank Manta to go to Delta, Utah, and provide supervision for a construction job that J.L. Manta, Inc., was performing at a power plant in that location. Claimant was provided travel expenses from Florida to Utah by the employer and he took his wife with him to the construction site. Claimant's living expenses, except for food, were paid in addition to his hourly wage.
At the construction site in Utah claimant suffered an injury that entitled him to file a claim pursuant to the Florida Workers' Compensation Act, if it was determined that jurisdiction for this accident was conferred by the laws of the State of Florida. Carrier No. 1 (Commercial Union Insurance Company) provided general workers' compensation insurance coverage for the employer in the State of Florida. Carrier No. 2 (Wausau Insurance Company) provided workers' compensation insurance coverage specifically for the employer on the Intermountain Power Project in Delta, Utah. Claimant had slipped on some hydraulic fluid and landed on his back on concrete. He suffers from damaged vertebrae and wears a neck brace. His back as well as his neck cause him continual discomfort.
Claimant filed a claim for benefits in Florida, requesting temporary total disability and/or temporary partial disability from April 10, 1986, to date and continuing payment of past and future medical bills, wage loss, rehabilitation, penalties, interest, attorney's fees and costs. He also later filed an amended claim for benefits including examination and treatment by a psychiatrist, attorney's fees and costs. The parties agreed that the sole issues for determination were whether this was a Florida workers' compensation case, and if so, whether carrier No. 1 or carrier No. 2 had coverage.
In his order, and amended order of May 12, 1987, the deputy commissioner found that this accident fell within the jurisdiction of the Florida Workers' Compensation Act, not under the laws of the State of Utah, and that carrier No. 1, Commercial Union, was to provide workers' compensation insurance coverage to employer for the claimant's injury in Utah. The deputy commissioner based his results upon a determination that the contract for employment between the employer and the claimant was made in the State of Florida and therefore met the requirement set forth in section 440.09(1) Florida Statutes. 1
Upon request from appellants, we elect to treat...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hines Elec. v. McClure
...coverage were not reviewable. ESI v. Taylor, supra; Ralston Purina v. Tancak, 508 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); J.L. Manta, Inc. v. Ramos, 526 So.2d 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Kent Ins. Co. v. Hobbs, 421 So.2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). 7 Where certiorari was found to be inappropriate, many ti......
-
Nelson v. McAbee Const., Inc.
...concluded earlier. Rather, the purpose of the call was to advise the claimant where to report to work. 1 See also J.L. Manta, Inc. v. Ramos, 526 So.2d 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); George A. Fuller Co. v. Chastain, 388 So.2d 284 (Fla. 1st DCA The instant case requires an examination of an employ......