Clinch v. Rinker Materials, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Clinch v. Rinker Materials, Inc.

711 So. 2d 1386, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7884, 1998 WL 347610

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 1, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2715

StatusPublished

This text of 711 So. 2d 1386 (Clinch v. Rinker Materials, Inc.) 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

Clinch v. Rinker Materials, Inc., 711 So. 2d 1386, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7884, 1998 WL 347610 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this worker’s compensation appeal, Robert W. Clinch, appearing in proper person, appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims which leaves undisturbed a previous order of June 21, 1996, which in turn found that claimant had failed to prove, as required by section 440.09, Florida Statutes (1994), that the work-related injury was the major contributing cause of his condition. Appellant did not appeal the June 21 order and, in the subsequent hearing, presented no new evidence on which the prior order could be reconsidered. Accordingly, we are bound by the findings made in the prior order of June 21, 1996, as was the Judge of Compensation Claims in the order under review, and must affirm the denial of benefits.

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, VAN NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this worker’s compensation appeal, Robert W. Clinch, appearing in proper person, appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims which leaves undisturbed a previous order of June 21, 1996, which in turn found that claimant had failed to prove, as required by section 440.09, Florida Statutes (1994), that the work-related injury was the major contributing cause of his condition. Appellant did not appeal the June 21 order and, in the subsequent hearing, presented no new evidence on which the prior order could be reconsidered. Accordingly, we are bound by the findings made in the prior order of June 21, 1996, as was the Judge of Compensation Claims in the order under review, and must affirm the denial of benefits.

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, VAN NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

711 So. 2d 1386, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7884, 1998 WL 347610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clinch-v-rinker-materials-inc-fladistctapp-1998.