Orin Cummings Const. Co. v. Beckman, XX-62
| Decision Date | 25 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. XX-62,XX-62 |
| Citation | 395 So.2d 629 |
| Parties | ORIN CUMMINGS CONSTRUCTION CO.; Peninsular Fire Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Jerry Wayne BECKMAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James T. Walker of Brennan, McAliley, Hayskar, McAliley & Deckert, P. A., Fort Pierce, for appellants.
Shelton Clyatt, Jr., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
The employer/carrier appeal from a workers' compensation order awarding the claimant 45% temporary partial disability compensation.
Section 440.19(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), mandates particularization of a claim by providing that it will put the Division and the employer on notice with respect to the identity of the parties and the specific compensation benefit which is due, but has not been paid or is not being provided. Any claim or portion thereof not in compliance with the subsection is subject to dismissal upon the motion of any interested party, the Division, or the Deputy Commissioner. It is clear from the statute that it was the intent of the Legislature to discourage the filing of "shot gun" claims. We are asked to scrutinize the following claim in light of this intent.
The appellee's claim provided the required vital information relative to employer and employee identification, date of accident, date of notification, site of injury, description of accident, place of accident and employer's telephone number. In filling out that portion of the claim form calling for information relative to the specific benefits(s) due but not paid or not provided, the claimant supplied the following response:
Claimant has been unable to work due to injury and to date has received one week only of workers' compensation benefits. He is due benefits from date of accident forward ... at $194.14 per week.
Attorney fees and costs.
Appellants assert that such a claim does not meet the demands of the statute. We disagree. The claimant has provided the basic information required to put the employer on notice as to the benefits which are due and are not being provided. The problem in this case is not with the claim itself, but with the application for and the notice of hearing. No request was made for temporary partial disability benefits in the pretrial stipulation. The application for hearing indicated that the relief sought was "to have temporary total disability benefits brought up to date." The Deputy's notice of hearing stated that the subject of the hearing was "to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kaplan Industries, Inc. v. Rowlett
...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 Pla......
-
Kennedy v. Orlando Shader Realty
...by providing sufficient information to enable the employer/carrier to understand the benefits sought, citing Orin Cummings Constr. Co. v. Beckman, 395 So.2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) and Turner v. Keller Kitchen Cabinets Southern, Inc., 247 So.2d 35 (Fla.1971). This argument is without merit.......
-
Sparton Electronics v. Heath, AG-199
...litigated at some specific hearing. The notice of hearing and application for hearing must provide this, Orin Cummings Construction Co. v. Beckman, 395 So.2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Unfortunately, neither of these items is in the record on appeal. Nonetheless, the claimant does not dispute......