|
ROMINGER
LEGAL
|
||||||||||
|
Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions -
Florida Law
|
||||||||||
| Need Legal Help? | ||||||||||
|
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 |
|
|
Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO G.E. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND and SEDGWICK CLAIMS DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., CASE NO. 1D03-0405 Appellants/Cross-appellees, v. BOBBIE LYNN COX, Appellee/Cross-appellant. _____________________________/ Opinion filed August 19, 2004. An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Donna S. Remsnyder, Judge. Robert A. LeVine, of Newman, LeVine & Metzler, P.A., Tampa, for appellants/cross- appellees. Ivan Matusek, of Matusek, McKnight, Poluse & Cangro, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellee/cross-appellant. WOLF, C.J. G.E. Financial Assurance and Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. challenge an award of psychiatric treatment and temporary benefits to the claimant, Bobbie Lynn Cox. We find there was competent substantial evidence to support such awards and affirm without further comment. On cross-appeal, claimant raises three issues. We affirm as to all, but we briefly address one of the issues: whether the employer/carrier was estopped from denying permanent impairment. Because the issue of estoppel was not addressed by the JCC, we decline to address that issue for the first time on appeal.1 Claimant may raise that issue in the future if the question of entitlement to permanent benefits is litigated.2 BROWNING and HAWKES, JJ., CONCUR. 1The JCC acknowledged the estoppel argument, but she failed to address it; specifically, the JCC indicated that the issue of permanency had been withdrawn from her consideration by the claimant. 2We would note that the JCC found that there is no medical evidence that claimant attained maximum medical improvement as a result of the psychiatric condition, and as such, she found the claimant has not reached overall maximum medical improvement. 2
|
|
|
NOW - CASE
LAW - All 50 States - Federal Courts - Try
it for FREE
We
now have full text legal news
drawn from all the major sources!!
Pennsylvania Lawyer Help Board
TERMS
OF USE - DISCLAIMER - LINKING POLICIES
Created and Developed by
Rominger Legal
Copyright 1997 - 2009.
A Division of
ROMINGER, INC.
