Case ID: so3d_84/html/1234-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HIT PROMOTIONAL PRODUCTS INC. and Vigilant Insurance Company c/o Chubb Group of Ins. Corp., Appellants, v. Sakiba KRIVDIC, Appellee.
    No. 1D11-4097.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    April 12, 2012.
    Mark A. Massey of Walton, Lantaff, Sehroeder & Carson, LLP, Tampa, for Appellants.
    Matthew E. Noyes of Perenich, Caul-field, Avril & Noyes, P.A., Clearwater, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) challenges the Judge of Compensation Claims’ (JCC’s) award of a $2,000 advance to Claimant. We affirm the award of the advance because competent substantial evidence supports the JCC’s finding that Claimant has been unable to return to the same or equivalent employment, one of the three alternative statutory requisites for an award of an advance of $2,000 or less. See § 440.20(12)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010).

The E/C also argues that the JCC made a de facto finding that Claimant’s injuries were compensable. Because that issue was not before the JCC, we strike from the order the phrase “work-related” in paragraph eight. See City of Venice v. Van Dyke, 46 So.3d 115, 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (striking findings addressing com-pensability of claimant’s hypertension because there was no pending claim for same).

The order is AFFIRMED as modified.

WOLF, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.