City of Tampa v. Costello

District Court of Appeal of Florida

City of Tampa v. Costello

626 So. 2d 1095, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11649, 1993 WL 474120

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 19, 1993

DocketNo. 92-2879

StatusPublished

This text of 626 So. 2d 1095 (City of Tampa v. Costello) 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 Tampa v. Costello, 626 So. 2d 1095, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11649, 1993 WL 474120 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Employer, City of Tampa, raises one issue on appeal: Whether there is competent substantial evidence to support the judge of compensation claims’ finding that the claimant’s illness is causally related to his employment. We find that there is, and affirm. Florida Power Corp. v. Stenholm, 577 So.2d 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

Claimant, Costello, argues on cross appeal that the employer carrier (E/C) should be ordered to pay all of claimant’s out-of-pocket medical expenses. The E/C does not dispute the amount that is due, but only asserts that the claimant is not entitled to the payment of any medical bills because the injury should not have been determined to be compensable. In light of our affirmance as to the issue on direct appeal, we reverse as to the issue on cross appeal, and order the E/C to pay claimant’s out-of-pocket medical expenses.

ERVIN, JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Employer, City of Tampa, raises one issue on appeal: Whether there is competent substantial evidence to support the judge of compensation claims’ finding that the claimant’s illness is causally related to his employment. We find that there is, and affirm. Florida Power Corp. v. Stenholm, 577 So.2d 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

Claimant, Costello, argues on cross appeal that the employer carrier (E/C) should be ordered to pay all of claimant’s out-of-pocket medical expenses. The E/C does not dispute the amount that is due, but only asserts that the claimant is not entitled to the payment of any medical bills because the injury should not have been determined to be compensable. In light of our affirmance as to the issue on direct appeal, we reverse as to the issue on cross appeal, and order the E/C to pay claimant’s out-of-pocket medical expenses.

ERVIN, JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

626 So. 2d 1095, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11649, 1993 WL 474120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-tampa-v-costello-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack