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 16, 2015 by admin

Workers’ compensation — State employees

40 Fla. L. Weekly D2358aTop of Form

Workers’
compensation — State employees — Evidence supported JCC’s finding that
claimant suffered a compensable accident for which she has coverage from state
— Appellate court is without jurisdiction to address claim that section
445.009(11), Florida Statutes unconstitutionally bars claimant’s entitlement to
indemnity benefits

RAMONA ZAVALA, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF MID-FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A METRO ORLANDO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION/ESIS, INSPERITY SUPPORT SERVICES, LP/ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY/SEDGWICK CMS, Appellees, and WORKFORCE OF CENTRAL FLORIDA/FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES-DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT,
Appellees/Cross-Appellants. 1st District. Case No. 1D14-4617. Opinion filed
October 15, 2015. An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.
Neal P. Pitts, Judge. Date of Accident: November 12, 2013. Counsel: Kelli
Biferie Hastings of the Law Office of Kelli B. Hastings, PLLC, Orlando, and
Adam Littman of Adam Ross Littman, P.A., Winter Park, for
Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Kristen J. Longberry of The Longberry Law Firm, P.A.,
Orlando, for Appellees and Gerald F. Znosko of Znosko & Reas, P.A.,
Orlando, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

(RAY, Judge.) In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant appeals a
nonfinal order that adjudicates compensability of her accidental injury. In a
bifurcated order meeting the requirements of Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.180(b)(1)(C), the Judge of Compensation Claims found that the State
of Florida (Appellees/Cross-Appellants) is Claimant’s employer for the purpose
of workers’ compensation coverage under subsection 445.009(11), Florida
Statutes (2013), and that, although Claimant sustained a compensable workplace
injury, she is not entitled to payment of indemnity benefits in accordance with
the same statutory provision. In the cross-appeal, the State challenges the
JCC’s finding of a compensable workplace injury, which was based on the JCC’s
rejection of the applicability of the “going and coming” rule.

Because competent substantial evidence supports the JCC’s finding of a
compensable workplace injury, we affirm the issue raised on cross-appeal
without comment. With regard to the appeal, we also affirm the JCC’s finding
that the State is Claimant’s sole employer for payment of benefits under the
plain language of subsection 445.009(11), which deems a participant in an adult
or youth work activity under chapter 445 to be “an employee of the state for
purposes of workers’ compensation coverage.”

Although we affirm the order on appeal on the issue of compensability —
i.e., the determination that Claimant sustained an accidental workplace injury
for which she has coverage from the State — we cannot, because of
jurisdictional restraints, reach the second issue raised on appeal by Claimant:
whether subsection 445.009(11) unconstitutionally (or impermissibly) bars her
entitlement to indemnity benefits. In an order entered November 26, 2014, this
court appropriately advised the parties that this appeal and cross-appeal would
proceed as one taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.180(b)(1)(C)
and thus would be limited to the appealable portions of the nonfinal order
adjudicating compensability. See Consultants & Designers v. Brown,
677 So. 2d 915, 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (concluding rule permitting appeal of
nonfinal order adjudicating compensability “contemplates that only the ruling
on the issue of compensability may be challenged on interlocutory appeal”).
Here, the JCC’s denial of indemnity benefits goes beyond the issue of
compensability. The appealed order is a nonfinal order with regard to indemnity
benefits because the JCC reserved for another day adjudications on Claimant’s
entitlement to medical benefits and other claims.* Thus, the ruling on
indemnity benefits is an issue this court may address only upon entry of an
order resolving, with finality, all the disputes raised in the underlying case.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM that portion of the appealed nonfinal order
adjudicating compensability and expressly decline to consider Claimant’s
constitutional challenge to subsection 445.009(11) for lack of jurisdiction.
(ROBERTS, CJ., and THOMAS, J., CONCUR.)

__________________

*Consistent with the nonfinal nature of the order, the JCC directed the
parties to schedule a second merits hearing to resolve the substantive claims
and defenses.

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • 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