Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

October 9, 2015 by admin

Appeals — Certiorari — Workers’ compensation — Timeliness of petition

40 Fla. L. Weekly D2240aTop of Form

Appeals
— Certiorari — Workers’ compensation — Timeliness of petition — Even in
workers’ compensation cases, deadline for filing petition for writ of
certiorari is controlled by rule 9.100(c), which requires that petition be
filed within 30 days after rendition of order to be reviewed — Petition filed
31 days after rendition of order dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — Five-day
mailing period applicable in cases in which a party may or must act within
specified time after service does not apply to requirement that certiorari
petition be filed within 30 days after rendition of order to be reviewed

RONALD MATHENY, Petitioner, v. INDIAN RIVER FIRE RESCUE/ JOHNS EASTERN
COMPANY, INC., Respondents. 1st District. Case No. 1D15-2719. Opinion filed
October 2, 2015. Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Counsel: Kristine Callagy of
Bichler, Kelley, Oliver, Longo & Fox, PLLC, Maitland, for Petitioner.
William H. Rogner of Hurley, Rogner, Miller, Cox & Waranch, P.A., Winter
Park, for Respondents.

(KELSEY, J.) We dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari for lack of
jurisdiction because it was untimely. Even in workers’ compensation cases, the
deadline for filing a petition for writ of certiorari is controlled by Florida
Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(c). See Fla. R. App. P. 9.180(a)
(“Appellate review of proceedings in workers’ compensation cases shall be as in
civil cases except as specifically modified in this rule.”). Rule 9.100(c)
requires such a petition to be filed within thirty days after rendition of the
order to be reviewed.

In this case it is undisputed that the lower tribunal rendered the order under
review on May 12, 2015. The lower tribunal did not thereafter alter the order.
The last day to file a petition for writ of certiorari was June 11, 2015, which
did not fall on a weekend or holiday. Nevertheless, Petitioner filed the
petition on June 12, 2015 — thirty-one days after rendition of the order.
Because the filing deadline set forth in Rule 9.100(c) is jurisdictional, and
Petitioner did not meet the deadline, this Court lacks jurisdiction. See
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Lewis, 122 So. 3d 504, 505 (Fla.
3d DCA 2013); see also § 59.081(2), Fla. Stat. (2014) (“Failure to
invoke the jurisdiction of any such court within the time prescribed by such
rules shall divest such court of jurisdiction to review such cause.”).

On jurisdictional screening, this Court entered an order requiring
Petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as untimely
under Rule 9.100(c). In response, Petitioner claimed entitlement to an
additional five days under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.514(b).
Rule 2.514(b) provides that “when a party may or must act within a specified
time after service and service is made by mail or e-mail, 5 days are
added after the period that would otherwise expire . . . .” (Emphasis added.)
This rule applies only when another rule, a court order, or a statute requires
a party to act within a specified time after service. In contrast, Rule
9.100(c) requires a petition for writ of certiorari to be filed within thirty
days after “rendition of the order to be reviewed.” (Emphasis added.)
Rendition is not the same thing as service. When a deadline is tied to a date
of rendition, the extra five days under Rule 2.514(b) do not apply. See Miccosukee
Tribe
, 122 So. 3d at 506 (“Rule 2.514(b) affords no additional time when a
rule (in this case rule 9.100(c)(1)) requires a party to act within a specified
time after rendition of an order.”).

This principle is nothing new. The Florida Supreme Court and every
district court of appeal have affirmed it. It applies in general civil and
criminal practice as well as in workers’ compensation practice, unless another
statute, rule, or authorized court order expressly provides otherwise. See,
e.g.
, Bell v. U.S.B. Acquisition Co., 734 So. 2d 403, 412 (Fla.
1999) (applying former Rule 9.420(d), which then set forth the extra-five-day
provision); Miccosukee Tribe, 122 So. 3d at 506; Moonier v. Fla.
Unemployment Appeals Comm’n
, 73 So. 3d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Turner
v. State
, 557 So. 2d 939, 939 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Bouchard v. State,
Dep’t of Bus. Regulation, Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco
, 448
So. 2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Franchi v. Fla. Dep’t of Commerce,
Div. of Emp’t Sec., Bd. of Review
, 375 So. 2d 1154, 1156 (Fla. 4th DCA
1979).

The petition for writ of certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction over this petition, we also
deny Petitioner’s alternative request that this case be consolidated with
another case now pending in this Court that involves similar issues of law.
Nothing herein should be construed as suggesting that we would have certiorari
jurisdiction to review an order such as that at issue here. See, e.g., Dep’t
of Revenue v. Groman
, 46 So. 3d 1058, 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (certiorari
will not lie to review order that can be remedied by plenary appeal after entry
of final order). (WETHERELL and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.)

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982