Owens-Illinois v. DeLoach, OWENS-ILLINOIS and G

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtDAVIS; KAHN; ERVIN; ERVIN
Citation686 So.2d 1387
Decision Date27 January 1997
Docket NumberNo. 96-1344,OWENS-ILLINOIS and G
Parties22 Fla. L. Weekly D340 eorgia Pacific Corporation, Appellants, v. Richard DeLOACH, Appellee.

Page 1387

686 So.2d 1387
22 Fla. L. Weekly D340
OWENS-ILLINOIS and Georgia Pacific Corporation, Appellants,
v.
Richard DeLOACH, Appellee.
No. 96-1344.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District.
Jan. 27, 1997.

Page 1388

Robert A. LeVine of Gluckman, Newman & LeVine, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants.

J. David Parrish, Orlando; and Bill McCabe, Longwood, for Appellee.

DAVIS, Judge.

The employer/carrier (e/c) appeal an order entered after an emergency hearing held pursuant to section 440.25(4)(h), Florida Statutes (1995), and assert that the order should be reversed because the claimant failed to expressly cite section 440.25 in the notice of hearing; because they were denied due process by the award of benefits not requested in the notice; because there was no finding that an actual emergency exists; because the claimant failed to prove the causal connection between the medical care sought with Dr. Love and his compensable accidents in 1984 and 1986; and because the JCC failed to make findings regarding the existence of the causal connection. We disagree with the e/c's argument that the notice of emergency conference did not adequately inform the e/c that the hearing was being requested pursuant to section 440.25, and could result in an adjudication of benefits by the JCC. The motion for emergency hearing stated that the claimant sought "immediate medical care and ... authorization of Dr. Lucy C. Love." Therefore, this case is distinguishable from Town of Jupiter v. Andreff, 656 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). 1 However, we find merit to the remaining issues, and therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

E/C assert they were denied due process because the JCC awarded payment of the bills of Dr. Love, when this was not requested in the motion for emergency hearing. "An order that is not in accord with the understanding with which the workers' compensation hearing was undertaken and participated in is a denial of due process and must be reversed." Southeast Recycling v. Cottongim, 639 So.2d 155, 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). In the present case, the claimant's motion requests "authorization for Dr. Lucy C. Love." The JCC's order states that "Dr. Lucy C. Love shall be authorized to evaluate and treat claimant for the injuries from these D/A's and that the Employer/Carrier shall be

Page 1389

responsible for payment of the medical bills per the schedule." Because the payment of Dr. Love's past medical bills was not an issue to be decided at the emergency hearing and the JCC's order does not limit the medical bills for which the E/C is responsible, the JCC improperly awarded benefits that were beyond the scope of the hearing.

E/C also meritoriously contend that the order is facially inadequate because it does not contain any findings that an actual emergency exists. In Dayco Products v. Rue, 676 So.2d 58, 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), we held that "the JCC must include a finding, based on competent substantial evidence that an actual emergency exists and must state sufficient facts to support this finding." The facts of this case highlight the importance of parties acting in good faith, and not abusing the appeal process to frustrate compliance with orders entered on genuine emergencies. Deficiencies such as this one, which can readily be corrected on motion for rehearing, should be raised on motion for rehearing so that they may be resolved below without engaging in the time-consuming appellate process. The facts of this case also illustrate the importance of the JCC making actual findings regarding the existence of an emergency because the evidence could support either a finding that an emergency does or a finding that an emergency does not exist.

Claimant was injured in the course and scope of his employment in 1984 and 1986. In February 1995, Dr. McCraney diagnosed severe spinal canal stenosis and referred the claimant to Dr. Mozingo. Dr. Mozingo stated in May 1995 that the claimant needs "complex cervical spine surgery ... as soon as possible ..." In May...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Simmonds v. Perkins, No. SC17–1963
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 28, 2018
    ...that the mother's husband has abused, abandoned, or neglected the child would be relevant to the child's best interests, see G.F.C. , 686 So.2d at 1387, it might not be dispositive. Moreover, the presence of such severe facts is not required to establish that it would be in the child's best......
  • Achumba v. Neustein, No. 5D00-2486.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • July 6, 2001
    ...to her may be. More than a mere allegation of biological fatherhood is necessary to terminate one's status as a "legal father." G.F.C., 686 So.2d at 1387. Achumba or Smoot must take some legally recognized action, that considers the due process rights of all interested parties, to terminate......
  • Slowinski v. Sweeney, CASE NO. 1D10-5342
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 18, 2011
    ...between the putative father and the child[;] an allegation of a mere biological link to the child will not suffice." G.F.C., 686 So. 2d at 1387. However, this exception has largely been discussed in passing, and often in a denigrating manner. See Bellomo v. Gagliano, 815 So. 2d at 722 (stat......
  • Slowinski v. Sweeney, No. 1D10–5342.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 6, 2011
    ...between the putative father and the child[;] an allegation of a mere biological link to the child will not suffice.” G.F.C., 686 So.2d at 1387. However, this exception has largely been discussed in passing, and often in a denigrating manner. See Bellomo v. Gagliano, 815 So.2d at 722 (statin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Simmonds v. Perkins, No. SC17–1963
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 28, 2018
    ...that the mother's husband has abused, abandoned, or neglected the child would be relevant to the child's best interests, see G.F.C. , 686 So.2d at 1387, it might not be dispositive. Moreover, the presence of such severe facts is not required to establish that it would be in the child's best......
  • Achumba v. Neustein, No. 5D00-2486.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • July 6, 2001
    ...to her may be. More than a mere allegation of biological fatherhood is necessary to terminate one's status as a "legal father." G.F.C., 686 So.2d at 1387. Achumba or Smoot must take some legally recognized action, that considers the due process rights of all interested parties, to terminate......
  • Slowinski v. Sweeney, CASE NO. 1D10-5342
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 18, 2011
    ...between the putative father and the child[;] an allegation of a mere biological link to the child will not suffice." G.F.C., 686 So. 2d at 1387. However, this exception has largely been discussed in passing, and often in a denigrating manner. See Bellomo v. Gagliano, 815 So. 2d at 722 (stat......
  • Slowinski v. Sweeney, No. 1D10–5342.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 6, 2011
    ...between the putative father and the child[;] an allegation of a mere biological link to the child will not suffice.” G.F.C., 686 So.2d at 1387. However, this exception has largely been discussed in passing, and often in a denigrating manner. See Bellomo v. Gagliano, 815 So.2d at 722 (statin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT