Southeast Recycling Corp. v. McClure, 94-4191
| Decision Date | 10 August 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-4191,94-4191 |
| Citation | 658 So.2d 670 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1808 SOUTHEAST RECYCLING CORPORATION and Royal Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Beverly McCLURE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Diane L. Sudia of Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McClain, P.A., Orlando, for appellants.
Patrick J. Deese, Melbourne; Bill McCabe of Shepherd, McCabe & Cooley, Longwood, for appellee.
Southeast Recycling Corporation and Royal Insurance Company, the employer/carrier (E/C), appeal a nonfinal discovery order entered by the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) that compels production of the densifier machine that Beverly McClure, Claimant, was cleaning when she was injured. Because section 440.39(7), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that the employee, employer, and carrier have a duty to cooperate with each other in investigating and prosecuting claims and potential claims against third-party tortfeasors by producing non-privileged documents and allowing inspection of premises, we affirm the order compelling production.
Claimant was injured while cleaning a densifier machine when its operating system moved unexpectedly. The E/C accepted the injury as compensable and provided medical and appropriate indemnity benefits. Claimant has filed no request for assistance or petition for benefits.
Claimant scheduled a deposition of the employer's records custodian requesting production of the densifier machine for inspection, testing, and videotaping as well as certain specified documents related to the machine's manufacture and maintenance. At the scheduled deposition, the E/C's counsel objected that the items requested for production were outside the scope of permissible discovery. Claimant then moved to compel production. The E/C argued in response that because there was no pending workers' compensation action through which Claimant could obtain discovery and because no third-party action had been filed, they had no duty to cooperate. The E/C also suggested that such discovery might lead to a suit in tort against the employer (nothing in the record supports the notion that this was Claimant's purpose), and therefore demanded, as a condition of providing the requested discovery, that Claimant execute and deliver a release or indemnification agreement protecting the E/C against such a suit. The JCC correctly rejected all of these arguments, granting Claimant's motion to compel.
The E/C rely upon Suburban Propane v. Estate of Pitcher, 564 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), for their position that they have no duty to cooperate by producing the items requested. Suburban Propane, however, is inapposite because its facts are materially different from the present case.
The language of section 440.39(7) is unambiguous and provides for a duty to cooperate in the investigation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vazquez v. Romero
...benefits to release Social Security Administration records to employer/carrier while no PFB was pending); Southeast Recycling Corp. v. McClure, 658 So.2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (permitting JCC to compel production of machine that injured claimant from employer even in absence of pending cl......
-
Hauser v. VOLUSIA CTY. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
...hearing, claimants also cite Suburban Propane v. Estate of Pitcher, 564 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), and Southeast Recycling Corp. v. McClure, 658 So.2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). We find nothing in these cases to alter our view that the necessity for an evidentiary hearing in workers' com......
-
General Cinema Beverages of Miami, Inc. v. Mortimer
...of specific duties--production of documents and access to premises--must be read as a nonexclusive list. Cf. Southeast Recycling Corp. v. McClure, 658 So.2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (construing section 440.39 to require production of machinery for testing despite the fact that production of ......