City of Inverness v. Volmar

District Court of Appeal of Florida

City of Inverness v. Volmar

768 So. 2d 1253, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13465, 2000 WL 1527909

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 17, 2000

DocketNo. 1D99-3677

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 768 So. 2d 1253 (City of Inverness v. Volmar) 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

City of Inverness v. Volmar, 768 So. 2d 1253, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13465, 2000 WL 1527909 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The City of Inverness and the Florida League of Cities appeal an order of the judge of compensation claims contending the judge should have granted their motion for the appointment of an expert medical advisor. See § 440.13(9)(c), Fla. Stat. (1997). Because the testimony of the expert medical witnesses is contradictory on at least one material element, we reverse. See Claims Management, Inc. v. Lake, 717 So.2d 140, 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“The judge of compensation claims erred in refusing to grant the E/C’s motion to appoint an EMA, notwithstanding the mandatory language of section 440.13(9)(c), Florida Statutes (1995).”); Palm Springs Gen. Hasp. v. Cabrera, 698 So.2d 1352, 1356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (“The statutory language provides no support for the view that the statute is directory only, or that evaluation by expert medical advisors is to be left to the discretion of the judge of compensation claims.”).

REVERSED and REMANDED for appointment of an expert medical advisor and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BARFIELD, C.J., and WEBSTER and BENTON, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

The City of Inverness and the Florida League of Cities appeal an order of the judge of compensation claims contending the judge should have granted their motion for the appointment of an expert medical advisor. See § 440.13(9)(c), Fla. Stat. (1997). Because the testimony of the expert medical witnesses is contradictory on at least one material element, we reverse. See Claims Management, Inc. v. Lake, 717 So.2d 140, 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“The judge of compensation claims erred in refusing to grant the E/C’s motion to appoint an EMA, notwithstanding the mandatory language of section 440.13(9)(c), Florida Statutes (1995).”); Palm Springs Gen. Hasp. v. Cabrera, 698 So.2d 1352, 1356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (“The statutory language provides no support for the view that the statute is directory only, or that evaluation by expert medical advisors is to be left to the discretion of the judge of compensation claims.”).

REVERSED and REMANDED for appointment of an expert medical advisor and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BARFIELD, C.J., and WEBSTER and BENTON, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

768 So. 2d 1253, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13465, 2000 WL 1527909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-inverness-v-volmar-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack