Kaplan Industries, Inc. v. Rowlett
| Decision Date | 13 August 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-2845,89-2845 |
| Citation | 565 So.2d 404 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2088 KAPLAN INDUSTRIES, INC., and Claims Center, Appellants, v. Anthony ROWLETT, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David J. Williams of Lane, Trohn, Clarke, Bertrand & Williams, Lakeland, for appellants.
Richard R. Roach, Jr., Lakeland, for appellee.
Employer/carrier appeal a workers' compensation order by which various benefits were awarded, including the payment of certain medical bills and the assessment of a penalty. This final order is patently defective on its face, as it fails to address certain claims which were presented for adjudication. We find that it was also error to order payment of medical bills which were not at issue in the proceeding below, and that the penalty award is not accompanied by adequate findings.
Claimant sustained compensable injuries to his face and arm, and obtained medical treatment from several physicians including Dr. Merritt. A claim was made for various workers' compensation benefits, and Dr. Merritt's outstanding bills were not expressly identified as a disputed issue. At a hearing on the claim Dr. Merritt was allowed to testify, but the judge indicated that this testimony was being received as to issues other than the payment of Dr. Merritt's medical bills. Employer/carrier objected to any consideration of this issue, and the judge acknowledged that employer/carrier's responsibility for such medical bills was not being litigated and would have to be addressed at another time. However, after the hearing was concluded the judge entered an order directing employer/carrier to pay these medical bills. The award of such payment does not comport with the general requirement that a claim identify the matters to be litigated, see Orin Cummings Construction Company v. Beckman, 395 So.2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), or the prohibition against awarding benefits which are beyond the scope of the hearing. See e.g., Sewell Plastics Inc. v. Jackson, 418 So.2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Diplomat Hotel v. Grimes, 379 So.2d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). It was error to award this unclaimed benefit, although the matter may be addressed on remand, or otherwise in the future, upon a proper claim.
Impairment benefits under section 440.152(a)(1), Florida Statutes, transportation and prescription expenses, and the payment of Dr. Tripathi's medical bills were expressly identified in the claim and pretrial stipulation as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commercial Carrier Corp. v. LaPointe, 97-2631.
...So.2d 1338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). A JCC should not award benefits which are beyond the scope of the hearing. Kaplan Industries, Inc. v. Rowlett, 565 So.2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Southeast Recycling v. Cottongim, 639 So.2d 155, 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). "Due process concerns preclude a ruling......
-
Florida Power Corp. v. Hamilton
...410 So.2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Albertson's Southco v. Williams, 402 So.2d 1342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); see also Kaplan Industr. v. Rowlett, 565 So.2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). These cases indicate that it is thus usually necessary that a claim identify the specific benefit being requested. ......
-
Southeast Recycling v. Cottongim
...So.2d 1338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). A JCC should not award benefits which are beyond the scope of the hearing. Kaplan Industries, Inc. v. Rowlett, 565 So.2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). While it is true that a matter may be placed at issue by the presentation of evidence specifically directed to th......
-
City of Plantation v. Seaman, 90-3030
...defense of failure to comply with the reporting requirements of section 440.13, Florida Statutes. See, e.g., Kaplan Industries, Inc. v. Rowlett, 565 So.2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); McMeans v. F.E. Booker Co., 507 So.2d 135 (Fla. 1st DCA The order appealed is REVERSED as to the payment of Dr.......