Case ID: so2d_948/html/0815-02.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

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES/DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT, Appellants, v. Maricela ROMANO, Appellee.
    No. 1D06-0452.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Jan. 9, 2007.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 16, 2007.
    E. Douglas Spangler, Jr., of Arrick, Peacock, Hodges & Wiener, Tampa, for Appellants.
    Mark N. Tipton, of Daniel L. Hightower, P.A., Ocala, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the employer/carrier’s (E/C) response to this court’s order to show cause dated December 4, 2006, the court has determined that the order on appeal is not a reviewable adverse order. See Crown Pontiac, Inc. v. Bell, 547 So.2d 290 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). If, in the future, claimant files another petition for benefits seeking benefits from the E/C, the E/C may assert their affirmative defense of misrepresentation at that time.

DISMISSED.

WOLF, LEWIS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.