Florida Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the Courts of Florida - unoffical reports - Opinions

ROMINGER LEGAL

Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions - Florida Law

Need Legal Help?

LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER

LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS

NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This court case was taken from the Florida Court's web site. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
BASSAM ABIFARAJ and
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
RAYYA ABIFARAJ as parents
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
and natural guardians of SAMER
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
ABIFARAJ ,
Appellants,
CASE NO. 1D03-0334
v.
FLORIDA BIRTH-RELATED
NEUROLOGICAL INJURY
C O M P E N S A T I O N
A S S O C I A T I O N , J O H N
RINELLA, M.D., RINELLA,
HUDANICH, GREENBERG,
RALPH & SIJIN, P.A., JOAQUIN
T A R A N C O , M . M . A N D
TARANCO & ASSOCIATES
ANESTHESIOLOGY GROUP,
P.A., D/B/A/ PLANTATION-
T A M A R A C A N E S T H E S I A
G R O U P , P . A . , A N D
P L A N T A T I O N G E N E R A L
HOSPITAL,
Appellees.
___________________________/
Opinion filed May 9, 2003.
An appeal from an order of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Barbara Green, Miami; Mayer Gattegno, Coral Springs; Timothy M. Martin, Miami
Lakes, for Appellants.

Kenneth J. Plante and Wilbur E. Brewton of Brewton, Plante & Plante, Tallahassee;
Nancy W. Gregoire and Darlene Stosik of Bunnell, Woulfe, Kirschbaum, Keller &
McIntyre, Ft. Lauderdale; Hal B. Anderson and John W. Mauro of Billing, Cochran,
Heath, Lyles & Mauro, Ft. Lauderdale; Mark Casteel, Tallahassee; Esther E. Galicia,
Merrilee A. Jobes and Liana Silsby of George, Hartz, Lundeen & Fulmer, Ft.
Lauderdale, for Appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The appellants have sought review of an Amended Final Order and Award,
which determined compensability under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury
Compensation Plan ("Plan"), created by section 766.303, Florida Statutes (2002).
However, because this order does not complete the judicial labor and bring the
administrative adjudicative process to a close, it is not an appealable final order. See
Hill v. Div. Of Retirement, 687 So. 2d 1376, 1377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Accordingly,
we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(m).
The administrative order on appeal determined that appellants' claim is
compensable under the Plan, ordered the payment of previously incurred expenses,
and "accorded a lump sum award of $100,000" to the appellants. However, the order
did not make findings as to the amount of the previously incurred expenses which the
appellee was ordered to pay. On the Court's own motion the appellants were directed
to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as premature because the order
2

did not appear to conclusively end the administrative adjudicative process. The
appellants responded to this Court's order asserting that the order is final.
Alternatively, the appellants argue that the order should be deemed final pursuant to
McGurn v. Scott, 596 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1992). Finally, if the order is not final, the
appellants request that this Court relinquish jurisdiction so that they may obtain a final
order. The appellees have also filed a response to this Court's order. However, the
appellees' arguments point out efficiency problems that arise in the implementation of
the administrative process required by the Plan and are more appropriately directed to
the Legislature.
The order on appeal is not final because the award of expenses was not waived
nor is it an ancillary or collateral issue like attorney's fees and costs. The appellants
take the position that because the order included a "waiver of any claim to an award
of reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the filing of the claim," they are not
entitled to any award of previously incurred expenses. Therefore, there is no need to
make a determination as to the amount of the award. Alternatively, if there is a need
to make this determination, it can be made later without interfering with the order's
finality because it is an ancillary or collateral issue. The appellants' reading of the
order fails to recognize the distinction between "actual expenses" arising from a
compensable injury, which comprise the element of compensation provided for in
3

section 766.31(1)(a), and "reasonable expenses" that are incurred in connection with
bringing the claim, which comprise a separate element of compensation provided for
in section 766.31(1)(c). The waiver of expenses incurred in bringing a claim does not
nullify the award of expenses caused by the injury. Therefore, we reject the
appellants' argument that there is no need to make a determination as to the amount
of the award of previously incurred expenses. Similarly, upon distinguishing "actual
expenses" and "reasonable expenses" it is clear that an award of compensation under
section 766.31(1)(a) is not an ancillary or collateral issue. We do not reach the
question of whether an award under section 766.31(1)(c) is an ancillary or collateral
issue.
The appellants argue in the alternative that this Court should deem the order final
because it is styled in the form of a final order and requires an immediate monetary
payment. See McGurn v. Scott, 596 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1992); Emerald Coast
Communications, Inc. v. Carter, 780 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). However,
unlike the orders on review in McGurn and Emerald Coast, the instant order is an
administrative order and not an ordinary civil order for money damages. Additionally,
this administrative order should not be deemed final because it does not appear final
in most respects, nor does it state that execution could issue. See Hoffman v.
4

O'Connor, 802 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Therefore, we reject the appellants'
argument that the instant order should be deemed final.
Finally, we deny the appellants' request to relinquish jurisdiction in order to
obtain a final order. The appellants have not identified any exceptional circumstance
necessitating relinquishing jurisdiction. Benton v. Moore, 655 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1995).
DISMISSED.
BOOTH, WOLF and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.
5

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions - Florida Law
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE