Skip to main content

Jones v Royalty Food

This March 12, 2012 1DCA decision reversed a JCC decision of Judge Pitts.

The claimant argued that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) erred in dismissing his petitions for benefits as a sanction for nonpayment of an earlier award of prevailing party costs to the Employer/Carrier. The claimant was indigent, unemployed, and homeless.

The JCC found that the claimant simply did not have the financial ability to pay the outstanding costs and that the claimant was not willfully refusing to comply with the Order Taxing cost.

The 1DCA  held that in exercising his or her discretion, the JCC may not dismiss a petition for benefits absent a specific finding that a party or its attorney has willfully refused to comply with an order. Based on the above, the 1DCA found that the JCC did not find that the claimant’s conduct was willful, deliberate or contumacious, and reversed the JCC decision.

Click to see 1DCA opinion
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CESPEDES V YELLOW TRANSPORTATION

This April 24, 2013 1DCA opinion affirmed in part and reversed in part Judge Portuallo's JCC decision. in this case, the claimant argued that the JCC erred by: (1) improperly shifting onto Claimant the burden to prove  the compensable injury was the major contributing cause (MCC) of his disability and need for surgery;  (2) finding  that the medical services at issue did not constitute “emergency care or services,” and that lack of notice to the  Employer/Carrier (E/C)  precluded authorization or payment; and  (3) finding  the opinion testimony from the emergency room physician, Dr. Acebal, is not admissible  pursuant to the “self-help” provisions contained in chapter 440.  The 1DCA reversed on the first two grounds raised and affirmed on the last. As background, the Claimant injured his lower back in 2006.  the Claimant declined surgical treatment, and ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Williams V City of Orlando

This June 13, 2012 1DCA reversed Judge Condry's JCC decision. The JCC denied compensability of the claimant's hypertension on the ground she failed to establish eligibility to rely on the statutory presumption occupational causation available via section 112.18. The claimant met three of the four requirements of section 112.18: 1    She was a police officer, 2    Her condition resulted in disability, 3    She successfully passed a physical examination upon entering into service. The JCC found that the claimant's essential hypertension did not meet the 4th requirement which indicates that the condition itself be one of those listed in section 112.18: "tuberculosis, heart disease, or hypertension. The claimant was diagnosed with essential hypertension. She introduced unrefuted medical opinion testimony that essential hypertension was the same thing and the same condition as arterial hypertension. In Bivens v. City of ...
Post a Comment
Read more