Smith v. Time Customer Servs. & Travelers

Citation132 So.3d 841
Decision Date31 January 2013
Docket NumberNo. 1D12–2398.,1D12–2398.
PartiesWendy G. SMITH, Appellant, v. TIME CUSTOMER SERVICES and Travelers, Appellees.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Bradley Guy Smith of Smith, Feddeler, Smith, P.A., Lakeland, and Richard W. Ervin, III, of Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

David K. Beach and Nicolette E. Tsambis of Rissman, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees.

WRIGHT, WILLIAM L., Associate Judge.

In this workers' compensation appeal, Claimant argues that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) erred by entering summary final judgment in favor of the Employer/Carrier (E/C) because a genuine issue of material fact remained unresolved as to Claimant's petition for benefits (PFB) of March 7, 2012, and the JCC erred in denying Claimant's claims for penalties, interest, costs, and attorney's fees. Because we reverse and remand the order on appeal based upon Claimant's first issue alone, we reverse and remand the associated denial of penalties, interest, costs, and attorney's fees.

Background

Claimant worked as a printer operator for the Employer; this job required repetitive lifting of boxes in and out of a printing machine, which, over time, resulted in injury to Claimant's lumbar spine. Claimant's accident and injury were accepted by the E/C as compensable, and the E/C authorized medical care for Claimant's injuries. On October 19, 2010, Dr. George Sidhom, Claimant's authorized physician, prescribed an “orthopedic mattress” for Claimant's lumbar spine condition. Dr. Sidhom issued a second prescription on the same date for a “sleep number i10 mattress and base,” also for Claimant's lumbar spine condition.

On January 26, 2011, Claimant filed a PFB seeking authorization of the “orthopedic mattress” as prescribed by Dr. Sidhom in October 2010. On March 8, 2011, the parties entered into a mediation settlement agreement wherein the E/C agreed to provide an “orthopedic mattress” per Dr. Sidhom's prescription.

On April 18, 2011, Claimant filed a PFB seeking the “sleep number i10 mattress and base” as prescribed by Dr. Sidhom in October 2010. A final merit hearing was held on May 25, 2011, relative to a claim for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. At this hearing, Claimant requested that the JCC reserve adjudication on the petition for the “sleep number i10 mattress and base,” asserting that, because no mediation had been held on the petition, it was not procedurally ripe at that time. In June 2011, the JCC entered an order awarding PTD benefits and reserving adjudication on the claim for the “sleep number i10 mattress and base.” This order was appealed by the E/C. See Travelers Ins. v. Smith, 79 So.3d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (1D11–3394). Because none of the issues relating to Claimant's April 2011 petition were resolved in mediation (held July 12, 2011), final hearing was scheduled for November 2, 2011.

On November 1, 2011, Claimant filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as to her April 18, 2011, claim for the “sleep number i10 mattress and base” on the basis that the E/C had again agreed to authorize an orthopedic mattress recommended by Dr. Sidhom. As a result of the dismissal of the April 2011 PFB, the November 2, 2011, hearing was cancelled. On February 13, 2012, this court affirmed the June 2011 order, which awarded PTD benefits and reserved adjudication on the April 2011 PFB for a sleep number mattress and base. See Smith, 79 So.3d at 26.

On February 21, 2012, Dr. Sidhom again prescribed a “sleep number i10 mattress and base” for Claimant's lumbar spine condition. On March 7, 2012, Claimant filed another PFB, seeking the “sleep number i10 mattress and base” prescribed by Dr. Sidhom in February 2012.

On March 22, 2012, the E/C filed a Motion for Summary Final Order seeking dismissal with prejudice of Claimant's March 7, 2012, PFB requesting authorization of a “sleep number i10 mattress and base,” alleging that it was barred by the res judicata doctrine because Claimant had filed several petitions seeking the same orthopedic mattress.

In her objection to the E/C's Motion for Summary Final Order, Claimant stated that summary final order was not appropriate because the case involved issues of fact regarding both medical testimony and the specific type of mattress sought, and Claimant now sought authorization of a new benefit based on a new prescription. On April 9, 2012, the JCC entered an order granting summary final order, dismissing with prejudice Claimant's March 7, 2012, petition, from which Claimant appeals.

Analysis

A ruling on a motion for summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Thomas v. Eckerd Drugs, 987 So.2d 1262, 1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (citing Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000)). It is well settled that, when reviewing a lower court's summary judgment ruling, an appellate court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing summary judgment. See, e.g., Auto–Owners Ins. Co. v. Young, 978 So.2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Summary judgment should not be granted unless, all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party having been drawn, the facts are so crystallized that nothing remains but questions of law. See Spears v. Albertson's, Inc., 848 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If, in contrast, the evidence is conflicting, and will permit different reasonable inferences, or tends to prove the issues, it should be submitted to the trier of fact. See Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d at 130;Schneider v. City of Jacksonville, 933 So.2d 601, 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

This court has explained that summary final orders are permitted where res judicata bars the claim:

Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Q–6.120(1) permits a JCC to enter a summary final order when the order would be dispositive of the issues raised by the petition, and there are no genuine issues of material fact. See id.; Begley's Cleaning Serv. v. Costa, 913 So.2d 1244, 1245 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). A JCC shall review the pleadings and depositions, together with affidavits, if any, to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact. SeeFla. Admin. Code R. 60Q–6.120(2); Costa, 913 So.2d at 1245. Issues considered dispositive, in relevant part, include whether the claim is barred by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Greiner v. De Capri
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
    • September 10, 2019
    ...as to one or more of such claims will not bar a subsequent action on claims becoming due thereafter." Smith v. Time Customer Servs. , 132 So. 3d 841, 844 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)."The doctrine of res judicata ... is not applicable where the claims in the two cases concern different period......
  • Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Kraz, LLC (In re Kraz, LLC)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • August 10, 2020
    ...Inc. , 904 So. 2d 520, 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Smith v. Time Customer Servs. , 132 So. 3d 841, 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ("The determining factor in deciding whether the cause of action is the same is whether the facts or evidence nec......
  • Harllee v. Procacci
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 5, 2014
    ...the facts and evidence that were necessary to prove the claim for violation of the shareholder agreement. See Smith v. Time Customer Servs., 132 So.3d 841, 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“The determining factor in deciding whether the cause of action is the same is whether the facts or evidence n......
  • O'Connor v. N. Okaloosa Med. Ctr., 1D14–0623.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 12, 2014
    ...the merits in a previous action. See Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246, 1259 (Fla.2006) ; see also Smith v. Time Customer Servs., 132 So.3d 841, 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Thus, where there is an absence of a prior final adjudication on the merits, res judicata does not apply. In t......
  • 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