Background
Yancarlos Andrade Hernandez sustained a workplace injury on October 18, 2022, giving rise to a workers’ compensation claim against his employer, Multi Services by Jenny, Inc., and its carrier/claims administrator, CCMSI-FWC. The matter was adjudicated before the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims, where Judge Wilbur W. Anderson presided.
The employer and carrier appealed the compensation judge’s order, and Hernandez filed a cross-appeal. The case came before a three-judge panel of Florida’s First District Court of Appeal, which has jurisdiction over workers’ compensation appeals statewide.
The Court’s Holding
The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the order of the Judge of Compensation Claims in a per curiam opinion. Judges Lewis, Bilbrey, and Winokur all concurred in the affirmance without further written explanation.
The opinion does not detail the specific issues raised on appeal or cross-appeal, nor does it elaborate on the reasoning underlying the affirmance, as is typical of brief per curiam dispositions in Florida workers’ compensation appellate practice.
Key Takeaways
- The compensation judge’s ruling was upheld in full, with no modification on either the main appeal or the cross-appeal.
- The per curiam affirmance without written opinion signals the panel found no reversible error warranting discussion.
- The decision is not yet final pending disposition of any timely motion for rehearing under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.
Why It Matters
While the terse per curiam affirmance limits the precedential value of this decision, it confirms that the findings and legal conclusions of Judge Anderson below were sufficient to withstand appellate scrutiny from both directions — neither the employer/carrier’s challenge nor the claimant’s cross-appeal succeeded in moving the court.
Practitioners handling Florida workers’ compensation claims should note that per curiam affirmances in the First DCA remain common dispositions in this docket-heavy area of law, and that the absence of a written opinion means the underlying compensation order carries whatever persuasive weight it may have in future proceedings before the OJCC.