Vazquez v. Romero
Decision Date | 09 November 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 1D15–0623.,1D15–0623. |
Citation | 179 So.3d 402 |
Parties | Edwin VAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Carlos ROMERO, L & R Structural Corporation, Acosta Construction/Co/Associated Industries Insurance Company, Guarantee Insurance Company, and Star Insurance, Respondents. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Matias R. Dorta, Gonzalo Ramon Dorta, and Craig A. Applebaum of Dorta Law, Coral Gables, for Petitioner.
Rayford H. Taylor of Casey Gilson, P.C., Atlanta, GA, and William T. Goran, Miami, for Respondents Romero and Associated Industries Insurance; and Stephanie R. Hayes, Staff Counsel, Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims, Tallahassee.
ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING, REHEARING EN BANC, CERTIFICATION, OR CLARIFICATION
Following publication of our opinion, Respondent Romero filed a motion for rehearing, rehearing en banc, and certification; and the Office of the Judge of Compensation Claims (OJCC) filed a motion for rehearing, rehearing en banc, or clarification. We grant the OJCC's motion for clarification in part, to emphasize that our disposition is limited to the facts of this case. We decline to address hypothetical facts not before us, and deny all other post-decision motions. We withdraw our opinion issued August 19, 2015, and substitute the following.
Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) from exercising jurisdiction over discovery requests that Respondent Romero filed after Petitioner had voluntarily dismissed petitions for benefits (PFBs) against Romero and two other alleged Employers, and their Carriers. After considering all of the parties' arguments and those of the OJCC, we grant the petition.
Petitioner filed three PFBs, thereby asserting that his injury is compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act. All three alleged employers denied having an employer/employee relationship with Petitioner, thereby denying compensability. Petitioner voluntarily dismissed his PFBs without prejudice, instead filing a tort claim in circuit court. Nevertheless, Romero filed new papers before the JCC attempting to rescind his prior denial of compensability, tried to provide benefits to Petitioner (which Petitioner rejected), and filed a contribution action against Respondent Acosta (again disavowing any employment relationship with Petitioner). Romero and his carrier also sought discovery related to the contribution claim, including discovery of Petitioner's medical records from a non-party hospital. Petitioner objected. The JCC held a hearing on Petitioner's objection, and entered an order holding that the JCC has jurisdiction over Romero's discovery efforts within the workers' compensation arena. Further proceedings before the JCC were stayed upon this Court's issuance of a show cause order on the Petition. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.100(h).
Romero and the OJCC argue that the JCC retains jurisdiction over Romero's discovery requests, either because Petitioner's voluntary dismissal was without prejudice and a PFB could be refiled, or pursuant to section 440.42(4), Florida Statutes (2013) ( )(emphasis added). We reject all of the Respondents' arguments. We emphasize that Petitioner makes no claim, compensability remains disputed, and no liability has been established. Compensability has not been established by agreement, because Petitioner expressly disavows it and has not accepted benefits. We have not been informed of any ruling by the trial court on whether Petitioner's claims are subject to the Workers' Compensation Act. There is therefore no justiciable controversy before the JCC regarding the parties' rights or obligations under the Workers' Compensation Act. On these facts, Petitioner's dismissal of his PFBs divested the JCC of jurisdiction. Cova v. Ostfeld, 994 So.2d 1162, 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (quoting Perez v. Winn–Dixie, 639 So.2d 109, 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) ).
The particular facts of this case distinguish it from the cases the Respondents cite, in which a JCC's jurisdiction exists or continues in the absence of a pending PFB. See, e.g., Southeastern Utils. Serv. Co. v. Redding, 131 So.2d 1 (Fla.1961) ( ); Covell v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 118 So.3d 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sims Crane & Equip. Co. v. Preciado
...in which a JCC had jurisdiction in the absence of a PFB).[*] Most of the exceptions generally involve discovery requests or disputes. See Id. Additionally, although section 440.33(1), Statutes, confers upon a JCC certain powers in the absence of a PFB, the statute is void of language encomp......
-
Law Offices of William F. Souza v. Truly Nolen, Inc.
...that there are cases “in which the JCC's jurisdiction exists or continues in the absence of a pending PFB.” See Vazquez v. Romero, 179 So.3d 402, 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). However, the E/SA ignores that this continuing jurisdiction exists in a limited number of cases involving discovery requ......
- Petrucci v. Brinson