Legal Opinion

ESI v. Taylor

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 23, 1991No. 91-192PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

The appellants have filed an appeal of a workers’ compensation order which resolves an employment issue so as to remove another employer/carrier from the case. The order awards various benefits but reserves jurisdiction as to a claim for attendant care, describing the issue as “unripe” because of a need for additional testimony.

This is an improper appeal of an interlocutory order which reserves jurisdiction as to the claim for attendant care. See Industrial Steel v. Robinson, 444 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The claim was not “unripe” merely because the judge desired further evidence, and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. US Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. SloanDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
  2. Industrial Steel v. RobinsonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984
  3. Winkel v. Grand Union StoresDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
  4. Doll House, Inc. v. PorterDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bradley v. Hurricane RestaurantDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1995
  2. HINES ELEC. v. McClureDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1993
  3. Nape v. Mark V ConstructionDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API