Cases

JCC determined that she did not have jurisdiction to determine merits of petition filed by claimant by taking judicial notice of two prior orders entered by previous JCC determining that the case was settled in its entirety. The employer/carrier failed to timely appear in the proceedings before the JCC and the JCC struck the employer/carrier’s defenses. However, the JCC sua sponte raised the issue of settlement and whether she had jurisdiction to adjudicate entitlement to benefits sought in the petition for benefits. JCC determined that she did not have jurisdiction to award benefits to claimant based on two prior orders determining that case had been settled. Writ of mandamus filed in District Court of Appeals compelling the JCC to reopen the case and resolve the claim on its merits. Petition for Mandamus denied by court.

 

Court determined that mandamus was properly used in this case to test the correctness of the JCC’s determination that she lacked jurisdiction. To show entitlement to a writ of mandamus, the petition must demonstrate a clear legal right, an indisputable legal duty on the part of the respondent, and no other adequate remedy exists. Court determined that the JCC’s lack of jurisdiction is an issue that the JCC could sua sponte raise. Because of the fact that the case had been fully settled and the time for challenging the order settling the case had passed, there was no viable claim over which the JCC could exercise jurisdiction to award additional benefits sought under the settled claim. JCC had authority to investigate whether the claim had been settled pursuant to previous order divesting her of jurisdiction to award additional benefits. Accordingly, there was no viable claim through which the JCC could exercise jurisdiction and writ of mandamus denied. In addition, the claimant had no legal right to additional benefits.