Case ID: so2d_981/html/1225-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. BROWNING, C.J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gilda Brown SULUKI, Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES and Specialty Risk Services, Appellees.
    No. 1D06-5365.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 8, 2008.
    
      Toni L. Yillaverde of Villaverde & Martinez, PLLC., South Miami, for Appellant.
    Rusten C. Hurd of Colombo, Hurd & Brandt, PL, Orlando, for Appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS and HAWKES, JJ., CONCUR. BROWNING, C. J„ CONCURS WITH OPINION.

BROWNING, C.J.,

concurring.

I write only to make known my reasons for concurring in the majority affirmance of a final order entered twenty-three months after the final hearing. It is fundamental to me that a Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) cannot adequately remember the testimony addressed at a hearing after such a long delay, and such a delay should be treated as a per se reversible error. Claimant deserves a ruling from a JCC with a “fresher” mind than one occasioned by such a delay. I concur here because Appellant failed to preserve this issue before the JCC. See Rivendell of Ft. Walton v. Petway, 833 So.2d 292, 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). I concur fully in the majority’s affirmance of the other issues.