From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rayfield v. Wometco Enterprises, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Aug 18, 1980
386 So. 2d 885 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

Opinion

No. RR-78.

August 18, 1980.

Edward Schroll, Miami, for appellant.

Mark L. Zientz of Williams Zientz, Coral Gables, for appellees.


Appellant and appellees both appeal from a workers' compensation order awarding certain benefits to appellant. We find error in one point raised by appellees.

The first order of the Judge of Industrial Claims in the cause was reviewed by the Industrial Relations Commission and remanded with the following single instruction:

To make further definitive findings and arrive at a correct permanent disability rating attributable to the accident of September 20, 1973, based on the present record.

On remand, the Judge of Industrial Claims reconsidered the evidence and concluded, among other things, that maximum medical improvement occurred on a date different from that found in the original order. Appellees assert that the establishment of a new maximum medical improvement date was beyond the scope of the remand and, therefore, was improper. We agree and reverse that portion of the order. After careful consideration of the other points raised, we find no further error.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

MILLS, C.J., and McCORD and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rayfield v. Wometco Enterprises, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Aug 18, 1980
386 So. 2d 885 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)
Case details for

Rayfield v. Wometco Enterprises, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS F. RAYFIELD, APPELLANT, v. WOMETCO ENTERPRISES, INC., AND HARTFORD…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Aug 18, 1980

Citations

386 So. 2d 885 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

Citing Cases

Lakeland Ford Co., Inc. v. Harrelson

Thus, the Deputy had no authority to reconsider this point and enter an Order beyond the scope of the IRC's…