Collazo v. Sourini Painting Co.

516 So. 2d 288, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2664, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11225, 1987 WL 1899
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 24, 1987
DocketNo. BQ-365
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 516 So. 2d 288 (Collazo v. Sourini Painting 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
Collazo v. Sourini Painting Co., 516 So. 2d 288, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2664, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11225, 1987 WL 1899 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the appealed workers' compensation order denying claimant permanent total disability and wage-loss benefits because the record does not contain competent, substantial evidence to support the finding of no permanent physical impair[289]*289ment. The issue presented to the deputy commissioner is whether claimant’s eleven-foot fall from a ladder to the ground aggravated claimant’s preexisting conditions and whether such aggravation has resulted in any permanent impairment. We would be neglectful if we did not point out that the manner in which claimant’s counsel tried this case, and the formulation of questions during Dr. Gilbert’s deposition concerning permanent impairment, leaves much to be desired. Nevertheless, contrary to the finding in the order, Dr. Gilbert’s testimony supports only a finding of the presence of some permanent impairment, rather than a finding of the complete absence of any permanent impairment. The only other evidence that claimant had no permanent impairment referred to by the deputy commissioner is the medical report of Dr. Wassel. But neither that report nor the cover letter accompanying it, dated February 28, 1986, contains an expressed opinion that no permanent impairment exists as a result of the aggravation of preexisting conditions.

Failing to find any competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the deputy commissioner’s determination to dismiss claimant’s claim with prejudice for lack of evidence of permanent impairment, we are compelled to reverse and remand for further proceedings, including the taking of additional evidence if deemed necessary by the deputy commissioner to resolve the remaining issues.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

WENTWORTH, NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Kessler v. Community Blood Bank
621 So. 2d 539 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Rodriguez v. Albertson's
614 So. 2d 678 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Carson v. Gaineswood Condominiums
532 So. 2d 28 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
516 So. 2d 288, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2664, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11225, 1987 WL 1899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collazo-v-sourini-painting-co-fladistctapp-1987.