28 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1959–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ryals v. STATE, UNEMPLOYMENT COM'Ngreen1 sentence2024See Ryals v. State, Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 722 So. 2d 845, 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (“[W]here a claimant does not challenge the sufficiency of the [referee’s] findings, but only offers a different version of the facts, there is no legal error.”). 2 | 1 | 1 |
Bueno v. Workmangreen1 sentence2019As explained in Bueno v. Workman, 20 So. 3d 993, 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), we “cannot employ the tipsy coachman rule where a lower court has not made factual findings on an issue and it would be inappropriate for an appellate court to do so.” Because the JCC failed to use the correct legal standard in evaluating Claimant’s claim for TPD benefits, we reverse and remand for further findings. | 1 | 1 |
Arizona v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2019On appeal, Claimant argues that section 440.105(4) is unconstitutional as applied to her because it is preempted by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), citing Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 401 (2012), and State v. Garcia, 401 P.3d 588 (Kan. 2017), cert. granted in part, 139 S. Ct. 1317 (2019). | 1 | 1 |
Russ v. Brooksville Health Care Center, LLCgreen1 sentence2017See Russ v. Brooksville Health Care Ctr., 109 So.3d 1266, 1268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (concluding, where claimant raised constitutional challenge, “JCC departed from the essential requirements of law, and caused irreparable harm by denying Claimant’s motion for an evidentiary hearing”). | 1 | 1 |
Bojangles v. Kuringgreen1 sentence2015See Kuring, 598 So.2d at 251 . | 1 | 1 |
Shuck v. Bank of America, NAgreen1 sentence2014See Shuck v. Bank of Am., N.A., 862 So.2d 20, 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). | 1 | 1 |
FLORES-MONTES v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See, e.g., White v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LP, 16 So.3d 992, 993-94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (stating a JCC has the prerogative to reject even uncon-troverted testimony which is unpersuasive). | 1 | 1 |
Kimmins Corp. v. Colliergreen1 sentence2010Concrete, 721 So.2d 353, 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (accepting jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.180(b)(1)(A) where JCC compelled claimant’s attendance at independent medical examination (IME), in absence of pending claim and over claimant’s objection on grounds of JCC’s lack of jurisdiction over case); Karell v. Miami Airport Hilton, 668 So.2d 227, 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (accepting jurisdiction of non-final order which determined “subject matter jurisdiction” where order was entered compelling claimant to attend IME prior to filing of claim, and in absence of pending clai | 1 | 1 |
Delgado v. J.C. Concretegreen1 sentence2010Concrete, 721 So.2d 353, 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (accepting jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.180(b)(1)(A) where JCC compelled claimant’s attendance at independent medical examination (IME), in absence of pending claim and over claimant’s objection on grounds of JCC’s lack of jurisdiction over case); Karell v. Miami Airport Hilton, 668 So.2d 227, 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (accepting jurisdiction of non-final order which determined “subject matter jurisdiction” where order was entered compelling claimant to attend IME prior to filing of claim, and in absence of pending clai | 1 | 1 |
Karell v. Miami Airport Hilton/Miami Hilton Corp.green1 sentence2010Concrete, 721 So.2d 353, 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (accepting jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.180(b)(1)(A) where JCC compelled claimant’s attendance at independent medical examination (IME), in absence of pending claim and over claimant’s objection on grounds of JCC’s lack of jurisdiction over case); Karell v. Miami Airport Hilton, 668 So.2d 227, 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (accepting jurisdiction of non-final order which determined “subject matter jurisdiction” where order was entered compelling claimant to attend IME prior to filing of claim, and in absence of pending clai | 1 | 1 |
Allen v. Protel, Inc.green1 sentence2004Allen v. Protel, Inc., 852 So.2d 916, 920 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.green1 sentence1988Jackson v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 520 So.2d 50, 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). | 1 | 1 |
Barnes v. Parkergreen1 sentence1987Cf. Barnes v. PCH Parker, 464 So.2d 1298, 1299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). ("Worker's Compensation Act in its day-to-day operation is intended to be beyond all else quintessentially an employer-carrier monitored system, rather than a claimant-attorney monitored system.") Moreover, even if the e/sa had complied with its responsibilities by informing the claimant of the requirement to perform a job search, in the absence of evidence that the claimant has voluntarily limited his income, a claimant, by finding and holding a job, is considered to have performed the equivalent of a work search. | 1 | 1 |
Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Senecagreen1 sentence1986Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Seneca, 433 So.2d 1369, 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). | 1 | 1 |
Johnston v. Super Food Servicesgreen1 sentence1984See Lasher Milling Co. v. Brown, 427 So.2d 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); see also Johnston v. Super Food Services, 461 So.2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). | 1 | 1 |
Lasher Milling Company v. Browngreen1 sentence1984See Lasher Milling Co. v. Brown, 427 So.2d 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); see also Johnston v. Super Food Services, 461 So.2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). | 1 | 1 |
Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Bennettgreen1 sentence1983See Commercial Carrier Corporation v. Bennett, 396 So.2d 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Walter Glades Condominium v. Morris, 393 So.2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Glades County Sugar Growers v. Gonzalesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
FLA. ERECTION SERV. INC. v. McDonald
green
2 sentences1985Claimant's brief does not effectively controvert appellants' argument on this point; rather, claimant's brief asserts that attorney's fees are sustainable under the bad faith standard discussed in Florida Erection Services v. McDonald, 395 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). 1981Under this rationale § 440.41(1) would operate to impute notice to the carrier since that section was intended to assist in the effective administration and discharge of "liability for compensation." Claimant's analysis of the purpose and effect of § 440.34(2)(b) coincides nicely with this Court's recent decision in Florida Erection Services, Inc. v. McDonald, 395 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). | 2 | 1981–1985 |
Kansas v. Garcia
green
1 sentence2019On appeal, Claimant argues that section 440.105(4) is unconstitutional as applied to her because it is preempted by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), citing Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 401 (2012), and State v. Garcia, 401 P.3d 588 (Kan. 2017), cert. granted in part, 139 S. Ct. 1317 (2019). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Aust v. Glazer
green
1 sentence2015Claimant’s pur ported prejudice — that Claimant’s attorney was not aware that the deposition was going to be offered into evidence — does not rise to the level of “surprise or unfair disadvantage,” as described in Whitlock, 886 So.2d at 248 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Aguilar v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc.
green
1 sentence2013This ruling conflicts with the recent opinion in Aguilar v. Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc., 68 So.3d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Delgado v. Blanco & Sons Catering
green
1 sentence2012The JCC relied on Delgado, 606 So.2d at 658 , to find that Claimant’s repetitive trauma injury was the MCC for Claimant’s need for treatment. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
B.P. v. G.A.R.
green
1 sentence2010Concrete, 721 So.2d 353, 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (accepting jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.180(b)(1)(A) where JCC compelled claimant’s attendance at independent medical examination (IME), in absence of pending claim and over claimant’s objection on grounds of JCC’s lack of jurisdiction over case); Karell v. Miami Airport Hilton, 668 So.2d 227, 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (accepting jurisdiction of non-final order which determined “subject matter jurisdiction” where order was entered compelling claimant to attend IME prior to filing of claim, and in absence of pending clai | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Chapman v. Nationsbank
green
1 sentence2009As this court found in Chapman , the denial of an EMA evaluation “cannot be justified on the basis that the JCC disagreed with and rejected the contrary opinion of an expert.” 872 So.2d at 393 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Suburban Propane v. Estate of Pitcher
green
1 sentence1995The E/C rely upon Suburban Propane v. Estate of Pitcher, 564 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), for their position that they have no duty to cooperate by producing the items requested. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Brazil v. School Bd. of Alachua County
green
1 sentence1993We grant Appellee/Claimant’s motion and revise our opinion of November 30, 1993 by affirming the Judge of Compensation Claims’ award of statutory 20 percent penalties on all accrued interest from February 9, 1987, to March 12, 1991. § 440.20(8), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1986); Brazil v. School Board of Alachua County, 408 So.2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Kirkland v. HAROLD PRATT PAVING, INC
green
1 sentence1988Although the deputy was factually correct that (1) the E/SA provided initial care as requested by claimant, (2) alternative care was offered, and (3) the E/SA ultimately provided the kind of treatment claimant wanted, those reasons were legally irrelevant under Kirkland, supra. Providing the care initially requested by a claimant does not bar claimant from subsequently requesting different care if needed; offering alternative care does not meet the E/SA’s obligation unless the alternatives offered include a health-care provider of the type described in Section 440.13(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1 | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Stahl v. Southeastern X-Ray
green
1 sentence1987Stahl v. Southeastern X-Ray, 447 So.2d 399 , 401 n. 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Blackwood v. Penwoven, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1987Moreover, in light of the supreme court's opinion in Blackwood v. Penwoven, Inc., 140 So.2d 108 (Fla. 1962), we seriously doubt that a pretrial conference can be the basis for an order determining the rights of the parties absent a stipulation to that effect or an otherwise clear waiver of their right to a hearing. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Walter Glades Condominium v. Morris
green
1 sentence1983See Commercial Carrier Corporation v. Bennett, 396 So.2d 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Walter Glades Condominium v. Morris, 393 So.2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Torres v. Eden Roc Hotel green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Crowell v. Messana Contractors green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| In Re Estate of Herskowitz green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Magic City Bottle & Supply Company v. Robinson green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Baskin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. neutral | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.