HIT PROMOTIONAL PRODUCTS INC. and VIGILANT INSURANCE COMPANY C/O CHUBB GROUP OF INS. CORP., v. SAKIBA KRIVDIC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA HIT PROMOTIONAL PRODUCTS INC. and VIGILANT INSURANCE COMPANY C/O CHUBB GROUP OF INS. CORP., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellants, CASE NO. 1D11-4097 v. SAKIBA KRIVDIC, Appellee. _____________________________/ Opinion filed April 12, 2012. An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Donna S. Remsnyder, Judge. Date of Accident: August 27, 2010. Mark A. Massey of Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder & Carson, LLP, Tampa, for Appellants. Matthew E. Noyes of Perenich, Caulfield, Avril & Noyes, P.A., Clearwater, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. In this workers compensation appeal, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) challenges the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC s) award of a $2,000 advance to Claimant. We affirm the award of the advance because competent substantial evidence supports the JCC s finding that Claimant has been unable to return to the same or equivalent employment, one of the three alternative statutory requisites for an award of an advance of $2,000 or less. See § 440.20(12)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010). The E/C also argues that the JCC made a de facto finding that Claimant s injuries were compensable. Because that issue was not before the JCC, we strike from the order the phrase work-related in paragraph eight. See City of Venice v. Van Dyke, 46 So. 3d 115, 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (striking findings addressing compensability of claimant s hypertension because there was no pending claim for same). The order is AFFIRMED as modified. WOLF, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.