Arkin Building Corp. v. Miller

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Arkin Building Corp. v. Miller

401 So. 2d 874, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20581

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 21, 1981

DocketNo. XX-124

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 401 So. 2d 874 (Arkin Building Corp. v. Miller) 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

Arkin Building Corp. v. Miller, 401 So. 2d 874, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20581 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order of the deputy commissioner is affirmed except insofar as it requires the employer/carrier to reimburse claimant for medical expenses incurred and to pay outstanding medical bills. Appellant argues that claimant did not comply with the reporting requirements of Section 440.13, Florida Statutes, and the record does not indicate such compliance. The employer/carrier raised this issue below, and the deputy should have made findings regarding compliance with this requirement of the statute or excuse for noncompliance. See Broward Industrial Plating, Inc. v. Weiby, 394 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

The order is REVERSED and REMANDED on this issue for further proceedings in light of this opinion. In all other respects, the order is AFFIRMED.

McCORD and SHIVERS, JJ., and WOODIE A. LILES (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The order of the deputy commissioner is affirmed except insofar as it requires the employer/carrier to reimburse claimant for medical expenses incurred and to pay outstanding medical bills. Appellant argues that claimant did not comply with the reporting requirements of Section 440.13, Florida Statutes, and the record does not indicate such compliance. The employer/carrier raised this issue below, and the deputy should have made findings regarding compliance with this requirement of the statute or excuse for noncompliance. See Broward Industrial Plating, Inc. v. Weiby, 394 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

The order is REVERSED and REMANDED on this issue for further proceedings in light of this opinion. In all other respects, the order is AFFIRMED.

McCORD and SHIVERS, JJ., and WOODIE A. LILES (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

401 So. 2d 874, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arkin-building-corp-v-miller-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack