440.24
Enforcement of compensation orders; penalties.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
440.24 Enforcement of compensation orders; penalties.—
(1) In case of default by the employer or carrier in the payment of compensation due under any compensation order of a judge of compensation claims or other failure by the employer or carrier to comply with such order within 10 days after the order becomes final, any circuit court of this state within the jurisdiction of which the employer or carrier resides or transacts business shall, upon application by the department or any beneficiary under such order, have jurisdiction to issue a rule nisi directing such employer or carrier to show cause why a writ of execution, or such other process as may be necessary to enforce the terms of such order, shall not be issued, and, unless such cause is shown, the court shall have jurisdiction to issue a writ of execution or such other process or final order as may be necessary to enforce the terms of such order of the judge of compensation claims.
(2) In any case where the employer is insured and the carrier fails to comply with any compensation order of a judge of compensation claims or court within 10 days after such order becomes final, the department shall notify the office of such failure and the office shall suspend the license of such carrier to do an insurance business in this state, until such carrier has complied with such order.
(3) In any case where the employer is a self-insurer and fails to comply with any compensation order of a judge of compensation claims or court within 10 days after such order becomes final, the department may suspend or revoke any authorization previously given to the employer to be a self-insurer, and the Florida Self-Insurers Guaranty Association, Incorporated, may call or sue upon the surety bond or exercise its rights under the letter of credit deposited by the self-insurer with the association as a qualifying security deposit as may be necessary to satisfy the order.
(4) In any case wherein the employee fails to comply with any order of a judge of compensation claims within 10 days after such order becomes final, the judge of compensation claims may dismiss the claim or suspend payments due under said claim until the employee complies with such order. The judge of compensation claims may strike the defenses of the employer, if said employer is self-insured, or of the insurance carrier, if said employer is not self-insured, if said employer or carrier fails to comply with any order of a judge of compensation claims within 10 days after such order becomes final.
History.—s. 24, ch. 17481, 1935; CGL 1936 Supp. 5966(24); s. 10, ch. 18413, 1937; s. 7, ch. 28241, 1953; s. 2, ch. 67-554; ss. 13, 17, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 120, ch. 71-355; s. 14, ch. 74-197; s. 23, ch. 78-300; ss. 18, 124, ch. 79-40; ss. 13, 21, ch. 79-312; s. 6, ch. 81-119; s. 43, ch. 89-289; s. 56, ch. 90-201; s. 52, ch. 91-1; s. 4, ch. 91-46; s. 36, ch. 2002-194; s. 1, ch. 2002-262; s. 482, ch. 2003-261.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 80
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Punsky v. Clay County Board of County Commissioners
Punsky v. Clay County Board of County Commissioners (2011)
“Claimant also argues that section 440.24(4) supports his assertion that costs may not be awarded against a claimant in a case where compensability is denied.”
Marion Correctional Inst. v. Kriegel (1988)
“Pursuant to Section 440.24(1), Florida Statutes, [1] Kriegel then filed a petition for rule nisi to enforce the compensation order, alleging that the e/c had failed to reinstate leave and sick time, as required by the order, which had never been appealed and therefore became…”
Phoenix Assurance Company of New York v. Merritt (1963)
“By this appeal, a compensation carrier seeks review of an order entered by a chancellor, pursuant to proceedings instituted under § 440.24, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. These proceedings sought to enforce an order previously entered by the Florida Industrial Commission, dated September…”
Brown v. Clay County Board of County Commissioners (2010)
“Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order granting Appellees’ rule nisi petition filed pursuant to section 440.24(1), Florida Statutes. Appellant contends that the trial court did not have jurisdiction under the statute to consider the petition.”
Metropolitan Dade County v. Rolle (1995)
“As a consequence of this unilateral act, Rolle sought enforcement of the order in a rule nisi proceeding in the circuit court pursuant to subsection 440.24(1), Florida Statutes (1993).”
ORANGE COUNTY AND ALTERNATIVE SERV. v. New (2010)
“When Appellee failed to pay the ordered costs, Appellants filed a petition in the circuit court for rule nisi under section 440.24, Florida Statutes (2008). Appellants requested that the trial court issue a rule nisi to Appellee to show cause why a writ of execution should not…”
City of Miami v. Knight (1987)
“Sometime in early 1986, Knight sought a rule nisi from the circuit court pursuant to Section 440.24(1), Florida Statutes (1985), seeking to require the City to resume PTD benefits until the ruling on the petition for modification.”
Merritt v. Promo Graphics, Inc. (1997)
“Merritt filed a petition for rule nisi in the circuit court pursuant to section 440.24, Florida Statutes (1995), claiming that Promo Graphics had *634 "failed to pay all the benefits due under the order.”
McCormick v. Messink (1968)
“This cause was brought under § 440.24, Fla.Stats., F.S.A., which states: “(1) In case of default by the employer or carrier in the payment of compensation due under any compensation order of a deputy commissioner or order of the full commission or other failure by the employer…”
Pierce v. Aetna Ins. Co. (1988)
“the court said: The rule is set down that an employer/carrier cannot unilaterally alter or modify an order of the Deputy Commissioner or Industrial Commission and until such time as an order is modified in appropriate proceedings by the Deputy *756 Commissioner or Industrial…”
A. D. H. Building Contractors v. Steele (1965)
“The ap-pellee then, pursuant to § 440.24, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., applied to the circuit court for a rule nisi in an attempt to enforce the order and award of the deputy commissioner of June 4, 1962.”
Alvarez v. Kendall Associates (1991)
“The enforcement provisions governing workers compensation orders are contained in Section 440.24, Florida Statutes (1989). Section 440.”
— 440.24(1) — 46 cases
Marion Correctional Inst. v. Kriegel (1988)
“Pursuant to Section 440.24(1), Florida Statutes, [1] Kriegel then filed a petition for rule nisi to enforce the compensation order, alleging that the e/c had failed to reinstate leave and sick time, as required by the order, which had never been appealed and therefore became…”
Brown v. Clay County Board of County Commissioners (2010)
“Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order granting Appellees’ rule nisi petition filed pursuant to section 440.24(1), Florida Statutes. Appellant contends that the trial court did not have jurisdiction under the statute to consider the petition.”
Metropolitan Dade County v. Rolle (1995)
“As a consequence of this unilateral act, Rolle sought enforcement of the order in a rule nisi proceeding in the circuit court pursuant to subsection 440.24(1), Florida Statutes (1993).”
City of Miami v. Knight (1987)
“Sometime in early 1986, Knight sought a rule nisi from the circuit court pursuant to Section 440.24(1), Florida Statutes (1985), seeking to require the City to resume PTD benefits until the ruling on the petition for modification.”
ORANGE COUNTY AND ALTERNATIVE SERV. v. New (2010)
“When Appellee failed to pay the ordered costs, Appellants filed a petition in the circuit court for rule nisi under section 440.24, Florida Statutes (2008). Appellants requested that the trial court issue a rule nisi to Appellee to show cause why a writ of execution should not…”
— 440.24(3)(b) — 2 cases
The Florida Bar (1988)
— 440.24(4) — 6 cases
Punsky v. Clay County Board of County Commissioners (2011)
“Claimant also argues that section 440.24(4) supports his assertion that costs may not be awarded against a claimant in a case where compensability is denied.”
Jones v. Royalty Foods, Inc. (2012)
Bussey v. Wal-Mart Store 725 (2004)
— 440.24(4)(d) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.