Apopka Greenhouse v. Scott

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Apopka Greenhouse v. Scott

417 So. 2d 1148, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20865

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 11, 1982

DocketNo. AI-38

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 417 So. 2d 1148 (Apopka Greenhouse v. Scott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Apopka Greenhouse v. Scott, 417 So. 2d 1148, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20865 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

LARRY G. SMITH, Judge.

We affirm the deputy’s order causally relating claimant’s herniated disc to his industrial accident of September 12, 1979. Although the evidence was capable of disparate interpretations, the deputy’s order determining causality was based on competent and substantial evidence. Further, even though the claimant failed to conduct a work search, the deputy’s order awarding wage loss benefits is sustainable based upon the evidence of claimant’s physical limitations, Dr. Shea’s deposition testi[1149]*1149mony regarding claimant’s inability to work, and the deputy’s observation of the claimant which taken together justifies claimant’s excusal from a work search.

Accordingly, the order appealed is AFFIRMED.

JOANOS and THOMPSON, JJ„ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LARRY G. SMITH, Judge.

We affirm the deputy’s order causally relating claimant’s herniated disc to his industrial accident of September 12, 1979. Although the evidence was capable of disparate interpretations, the deputy’s order determining causality was based on competent and substantial evidence. Further, even though the claimant failed to conduct a work search, the deputy’s order awarding wage loss benefits is sustainable based upon the evidence of claimant’s physical limitations, Dr. Shea’s deposition testi[1149]*1149mony regarding claimant’s inability to work, and the deputy’s observation of the claimant which taken together justifies claimant’s excusal from a work search.

Accordingly, the order appealed is AFFIRMED.

JOANOS and THOMPSON, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

417 So. 2d 1148, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/apopka-greenhouse-v-scott-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack