From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lopez

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Oct 7, 1998
742 So. 2d 301 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Summary

holding this court will not reverse a JCC's order for a readily correctable technical error that the JCC was not asked to correct within the time available for correction

Summary of this case from Kaloustian v. Tampa

Opinion

No. 97-3053.

Opinion Filed October 7, 1998.

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims Charles Vocelle.

William H. Rogner of Hurley, Rogner, Miller, Cox Waranch, P.A., Orlando, for Appellants.

L. Mark Kaylor, Sebring, and Bill McCabe, Longwood, for Appellee.


In this worker's compensation appeal, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Claims Management, Inc. (jointly the employer/carrier), appeal an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) determining claimant's entitlement to temporary total disability benefits, temporary partial disability benefits, and permanent total disability benefits. We affirm the order in all respects. We write to address the argument of the employer/carrier that the JCC improperly awarded disability benefits for a total of 108 weeks, exceeding the 104 week maximum allowed by statute. Even if the awards of temporary total disability benefits and temporary partial disability benefits exceed the total of 104 weeks allowed by section 440.15(2)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994) and section 440.15(4)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994), this error was not preserved for appellate review by the employer/carrier. The question of whether the length of disability benefits exceeded that allowed by statute was not raised before the JCC. Even if the employer/carrier is correct in its assertion about the length of awarded disability benefits, it is apparent to us that this issue involves a technical error that was readily correctable by a motion for rehearing. See rule 4.141, Florida Rules of Workers' Compensation Procedure. This court explained in Sunland Hosp./State of Florida v. Garrett, 415 So.2d 783, 785 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), that:

[I]n workers' compensation appeals, . . . we will not reverse for a readily correctable technical error that the [JCC] was not asked to correct within the time available for correction.

(Citations omitted); see also Acosta Roofing Co. v. Gillyard, 402 So.2d 1321, 1322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Albertson's, Inc. v. Natale, 555 So.2d 946, 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Aircraft Servs. v. Reyes, 582 So.2d 66, 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Accordingly, we decline to disturb this award.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, BOOTH AND VAN NORTWICK, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lopez

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Oct 7, 1998
742 So. 2d 301 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

holding this court will not reverse a JCC's order for a readily correctable technical error that the JCC was not asked to correct within the time available for correction

Summary of this case from Kaloustian v. Tampa

holding that mere "technical error" in time period for which TTD/TPD benefits were to be awarded was readily correctable by motion for rehearing, and employer's failure to raise issue before JCC within statutory time available for correction precluded appellate review of such issue

Summary of this case from Mitchell v. South Florida Baptist

concluding that the JCC's award of 108 weeks of benefits rather than the statutory maximum of 104 weeks, was a readily correctable error that the E/C should have raised by motion for rehearing

Summary of this case from Bogdanova v. Royal Hanneford
Case details for

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lopez

Case Details

Full title:WAL-MART STORES, INC. and CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC., Appellants, v. SANDRA…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Oct 7, 1998

Citations

742 So. 2d 301 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Citing Cases

Mitchell v. South Florida Baptist

The JCC's omission of any reference whatsoever to the alleged psychiatric condition and injuries, and the…

Kaloustian v. Tampa

Significantly, the E/C did not attempt to correct the purported scrivener's error by filing a motion for…