Case Name: CRAWFORD AND COMPANY and Wheeled Coach Industries, Appellants, v. Darius BARNES, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-04-14
Citations: 691 So. 2d 1142
Docket Number: No. 96-2887
Parties: CRAWFORD AND COMPANY and Wheeled Coach Industries, Appellants, v. Darius BARNES, Appellee.
Judges: ERVIN and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 691
Pages: 1142–1143

Head Matter:
CRAWFORD AND COMPANY and Wheeled Coach Industries, Appellants, v. Darius BARNES, Appellee.
No. 96-2887.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
April 14, 1997.
Derrick E. Cox of Hurley & Rogner, P.A., Orlando, for Appellants.
Brad H. Hollingsworth of Meyers, Mooney & Meyers, Orlando, for Appellee.

Opinion:
DAVIS, Judge.
In this case the employer and carrier (e/c) appeal an order in which the judge of compensation claims (JCC) awarded permanent total disability benefits because e/c failed to file a notice of denial within 14 days of the filing of a claim for benefits. The JCC relied upon Waffle House v. Hutchinson, 673 So.2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), and did not have the benefit of this court's opinion in North River Ins. Co. v. Wuelling, 683 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for reconsideration in light of North River Ins. Co. v. Wuelling.
E/C also appeal the JCC's decision to exclude certain last-minute surveillance evidence. The JCC has broad discretion over such questions, but must consider certain factors in exercising that discretion. See Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So.2d 1310 (Fla.1981); Dodson v. Persell, 390 So.2d 704 (Fla.1980). In Cedar Hammock Fire Dep't v. Bonami, 672 So.2d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), this court reversed an order excluding certain late-disclosed evidence in the absence of evidence of actual prejudice to the oppos ing party. If it is necessary to revisit the admissibility of this evidence on remand, the JCC is directed to make additional findings from which this court can discern the foundation for the exercise of this discretionary authority.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ERVIN and BENTON, JJ., concur.