Crown Window Co. v. Piesco

633 So. 2d 490, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1980, 1994 WL 59433
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 2, 1994
DocketNo. 93-155
StatusPublished

This text of 633 So. 2d 490 (Crown Window Co. v. Piesco) 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
Crown Window Co. v. Piesco, 633 So. 2d 490, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1980, 1994 WL 59433 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, the employer and servicing agent seek review of an order directing that they bear the expense of an additional medical evaluation and, if necessary, palliative treatment. Both of the medical doctors who testified at the hearing were of the opinion that claimant had reached maximum medical improvement nearly four years earlier, with no permanent impairment or restrictions. Because this case is indistinguishable from Amoco Container Co. v. Singh, 418 So.2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), we reverse.

REVERSED.

JOANOS and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. ZEHMER, C.J., dissents without opinion.

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

Related

Amoco Container Co. v. Singh
418 So. 2d 395 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
633 So. 2d 490, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1980, 1994 WL 59433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crown-window-co-v-piesco-fladistctapp-1994.