Smith v. Time Customer Servs. & Travelers, No. 1D12–2398.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | WRIGHT |
| Citation | 132 So.3d 841 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D12–2398. |
| Decision Date | 31 January 2013 |
| Parties | Wendy G. SMITH, Appellant, v. TIME CUSTOMER SERVICES and Travelers, Appellees. |
132 So.3d 841
Wendy G. SMITH, Appellant,
v.
TIME CUSTOMER SERVICES and Travelers, Appellees.
No. 1D12–2398.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District.
Jan. 31, 2013.
[132 So.3d 842]
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.
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
[132 So.3d 843]
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”...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greiner v. De Capri, Case No. 3:18-cv-2045-MJF
...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), Bankr. No. 8:15-bk-7039-MGW
...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, No. 2D13–5409.
...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 neces......
-
O'Connor v. N. Okaloosa Med. Ctr., No. 1D14–0623.
...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 the i......
-
Greiner v. De Capri, Case No. 3:18-cv-2045-MJF
...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), Bankr. No. 8:15-bk-7039-MGW
...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, No. 2D13–5409.
...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 neces......
-
O'Connor v. N. Okaloosa Med. Ctr., No. 1D14–0623.
...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 the i......