112 So. 3d 171
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Claimant filed a notice of appeal on February 7, 2013 challenging a February 6, 2012 final evidentiary order
- The 2012 order dismissed with prejudice Claimant's permanent total disability benefits
- The 2012 order did not dismiss all petitions; it reserved surviving temporary disability claims to mediation
- Claimant argued the 2012 order did not become final until January 8, 2013 when stipulations on unresolved claims were approved
- Court reviewed timeliness and finality under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.180(b)(1)
- Court concluded the February 6, 2012 order is a final order and the appeal filed February 7, 2013 is untimely
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the February 6, 2012 order a final appealable order under 9.180(b)(1)? | Claimant argues the order is nonfinal because unmediated claims remained unresolved | Defendant contends the order is final for purposes of appeal since it disposed of ripe claims | Yes; the order is final and the appeal is untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Parodi v. Fla. Contracting Co., Inc., 16 So.3d 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (reviewing order as final where it ruled on some claims but reserved others)
- Vazquez v. Truly Nolan of Am., 752 So.2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (finality when all ripe matters are adjudicated)
- Emro Mktg. v. Schwier, 670 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (adjudication of all matters ripe for hearing may be final)
- Bradley v. Hurricane Rest., 652 So.2d 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (final order when all ripe issues adjudicated)
- Town of Palm Beach v. Watts, 426 So.2d 1312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (piecemeal workers' compensation proceedings may yield final orders)
- Howard v. Ziegler, 40 So.2d 776 (Fla. 1949) (general finality standard differs in workers' compensation cases)