In Rosa v. Progressive Employer Services, a workers' compensation claimant challenged a judge's denial of temporary indemnity benefits and a ruling on his permanent impairment rating following an industrial accident while mounting a truck tire. The court reversed the order, finding that the permanent impairment rating issue was not properly before the judge as it had not been mediated or included in the pretrial stipulation, violating due process. Additionally, the court held that the finding of maximum medical improvement was inconsistent with awarding medical treatment expected to improve the claimant's condition, which precludes a determination of MMI and affects eligibility for temporary benefits. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the benefits claim.
The case involved Michael Golden, who entered a nolo contendere plea to aggravated battery and was sentenced to five years' probation in February 2010. After the trial court allowed withdrawal of the plea based on a motion filed by counsel in April 2010, Golden was convicted at trial of felony battery with great bodily harm and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to concurrent prison terms. The appellate court reversed the convictions and the plea withdrawal order, remanding with instructions to reinstate the original probation sentence. The core reasoning was that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(i) imposes a strict 30-day jurisdictional deadline after sentencing for filing a motion to withdraw a plea, which had already expired before counsel's motion, so the trial court lacked authority to grant it.
In Peterson v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, the case centered on whether the employer timely appealed an agency determination granting unemployment benefits to appellant Ouafae Peterson within the required 20-day period. The appeals referee orally found the appeal timely and later ruled on the merits in favor of the employer, a decision affirmed by the Unemployment Appeals Commission, but the record contained no postmark, fax confirmation, or other evidence verifying the filing date and instead showed the appeal stamped received after the deadline. The court reversed the final order, reasoning that the referee's timeliness finding was not supported by competent, substantial evidence, the referee failed to develop the record as required by administrative rules, and the employer provided no evidence at a subsequent hearing on remand. The court therefore remanded with instructions to dismiss the employer's appeal.
The case involved existing Dodge, Chrysler, and Jeep dealers Ulm and Ferman challenging Chrysler Group LLC's establishment of a new dealership (North Tampa) in Tampa after the prior dealer (Wilson) went bankrupt and ceased operations. The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles had ruled the new dealership exempt from statutory notice and protest requirements under section 320.642(5)(a)1, Florida Statutes, based on equitable tolling of the 12-month exemption period. The court reversed that order, holding that the exemption did not apply because the 12-month period began running no later than February 9, 2009 (when the bankruptcy stay was lifted), more than 12 months before North Tampa's license application on February 24, 2010. The core reasoning was that the statute and implementing rule tie the exemption period to the date the prior dealer ceases to be licensed, with no basis for further tolling, and that even assuming equitable tolling applied it would not extend the period long enough to cover the new application.
In Majors v. State, the appellant challenged his convictions and sentences for trafficking in illegal drugs, possession of a firearm by a felon, and related offenses, contending that the trial court should have suppressed evidence obtained after police stopped the vehicle in which he was a passenger. The court reversed the convictions and sentences, directing the trial court to grant the motion to suppress and discharge the appellant. The core reasoning was that officers lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, as the 911 call described only vague suspicious behavior at a bank without any observed crimes or specific articulable facts, and the community caretaking doctrine did not apply because the stop was not based on facts showing a public safety need.
The case involved Robert McQuade, a correctional officer terminated by the Florida Department of Corrections, who appealed to the Public Employees Relations Commission claiming the agency violated section 112.532(6)(a) of the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights by failing to complete its investigation within 180 days of receiving an internal incident report. The Commission dismissed the appeal after a hearing officer found just cause for discipline and ruled the statutory deadline inapplicable. On appeal, the District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the 180-day limit applies only to external complaints from private citizens and not to internal agency-initiated matters. The court reasoned that the statute's language and context distinguish between complaint sources, with no requirement for reinstatement in internal cases.