Rosa v. Progressive Emp'r Servs./Sunz Ins. Company/USIS

• Decision Date: 12 April 2012
• Docket Number: No. 1D11–4373.,1D11–4373.
• Citation: 84 So.3d 472
• Parties: Felipe ROSA, Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE EMPLOYER SERVICES/SUNZ INSURANCE COMPANY/USIS, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

84 So.3d 472

Felipe ROSA, Appellant,
v.
PROGRESSIVE EMPLOYER SERVICES/SUNZ INSURANCE COMPANY/USIS, Appellees.

No. 1D11–4373.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 12, 2012.

84 So.3d 473

Harold E. Barker of DiCesare, Davidson & Barker, P.A., Lakeland, for Appellant.

Ben H. Cristal of the Cristal Law Group, Tampa, for Appellees.

LEWIS, J.

In this workers' compensation appeal, Felipe Rosa, Claimant, challenges an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying his claim for temporary indemnity benefits and ruling on Claimant's permanent impairment rating (PIR). Claimant argues, and the employer/carrier (E/C) concedes, the JCC erred in making a finding on Claimant's PIR because that issue was beyond the scope of the hearing. Claimant also argues the JCC erred in finding that Claimant had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and further erred in relying upon that erroneous determination to deny Claimant's claims for temporary indemnity benefits. We agree on both points. Therefore, for the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Claimant suffered an industrial accident on June 15, 2009, while mounting a truck tire on a rim. Between July 2010 and March 2011, Claimant filed four petitions for benefits seeking both temporary total and temporary partial disability benefits from January 26, 2011, through the date of the final hearing, authorization for a C–7 nerve block, and other medical benefits.

As the JCC indicated during the hearing, the issue of Claimant's PIR was not before the JCC. This claim had not been mediated, listed in the Uniform Pretrial Stipulation, or addressed by either party, and was not ripe for adjudication. Consequently, the JCC erred in making a finding on the issue of PIR. See Lawrence v. Aquarius Sales & Serv., Inc., 30 So.3d 690 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding that the JCC erred in making a finding on PIR because Claimant's PIR was not at issue). Ruling on an issue that is not properly before the JCC is a violation of a party's due process rights. See Isaac v. Green Iguana, Inc., 871...