Butler v. Lanzo Construction Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Butler v. Lanzo Construction Co.

509 So. 2d 965, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1599, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9092

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 30, 1987

DocketNo. BO-322

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 509 So. 2d 965 (Butler v. Lanzo Construction Co.) 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

Butler v. Lanzo Construction Co., 509 So. 2d 965, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1599, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9092 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

BARFIELD, Judge.

As both the appellant and the ap-pellees concede, the deputy commissioner erred in the determination of the amount to be awarded for attendant care. The rate established by the deputy is purely arbitrary, without any foundation in the record. Thus, that finding is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. On remand, the deputy is to reconsider the proper amount, based upon the evidence before him. Further evidentiary proceedings may be conducted if necessary. The deputy is also directed to conduct further proceedings to determine the operability of the air conditioning system in the appellant’s home. The medical evidence established the appellant needs an air-conditioned living environment. Under these facts, it would be reasonable to require the employer/carrier to provide the injured employee with a working air conditioning system.

The other issues on appeal are found to be without merit. The deputy’s compensation order is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

MILLS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

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

BARFIELD, Judge.

As both the appellant and the ap-pellees concede, the deputy commissioner erred in the determination of the amount to be awarded for attendant care. The rate established by the deputy is purely arbitrary, without any foundation in the record. Thus, that finding is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. On remand, the deputy is to reconsider the proper amount, based upon the evidence before him. Further evidentiary proceedings may be conducted if necessary. The deputy is also directed to conduct further proceedings to determine the operability of the air conditioning system in the appellant’s home. The medical evidence established the appellant needs an air-conditioned living environment. Under these facts, it would be reasonable to require the employer/carrier to provide the injured employee with a working air conditioning system.

The other issues on appeal are found to be without merit. The deputy’s compensation order is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

MILLS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

509 So. 2d 965, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1599, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9092, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-lanzo-construction-co-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack