Case ID: so2d_462/html/0518-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SHIVERS, Judge. MILLS, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roger PAYNE, Appellant, v. GRINER-WOODRUFF, INC., and Commercial Union Insurance Company, Appellees.
    No. AZ-372.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Jan. 3, 1985.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1985.
    E. Douglas Spangler, Jr., Sarasota, for appellant.
    Claire L. Hamner, Dickinson, O’Riorden, Gibbons, Quale, Shields & Carlton, P.A., Sarasota, for appellees.
   SHIVERS, Judge.

Claimant Roger Payne appeals workers’ compensation order abating claimant’s wage-loss claim and hearing thereon. We reverse and remand.

Claimant Payne was initially awarded wage-loss benefits in an order which was appealed to our court in Case No. AX-148. 457 So.2d 1120. While that appeal was pending, Payne filed claim for wage-loss benefits for a subsequent time period. The deputy commissioner abated the claim for the subsequent period, stating that the nature of the claim, as well as the specific defenses raised by the employer/carrier, are identical to those raised at the prior hearing.

Although we recently ruled in Case No. AX-148 that claimant is entitled to wage-loss benefits on that earlier claim, this does not furnish the rationale for our holding here. Case No. AX-148 and the instant case (No. AZ-372) are for two separate periods of entitlement to wage-loss. Claimant is entitled to proceed under Section 440.25, Florida Statutes, and to have his wage-loss claim for this subsequent period timely heard. The deputy erred in abating the claim and the hearing on this claim.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

WENTWORTH, J., concurs.

MILLS, J., dissents with opinion.

MILLS, Judge,

dissents.

I dissent.

I would dismiss this appeal because it is moot. See Griner-Woodruff, Inc. v. Payne, 457 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).