Dade County School Board v. Albert

438 So. 2d 990, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22496
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 11, 1983
DocketNo. AQ-447
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 438 So. 2d 990 (Dade County School Board v. Albert) 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
Dade County School Board v. Albert, 438 So. 2d 990, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22496 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In his order dated January 17, 1983, the deputy commissioner found that claimant’s claim was compensable1 and, among other [991]*991things, awarded penalties and past2 and future medical benefits. That order was entered one year and four months following the date of hearing before the deputy commissioner. We reverse in part and affirm in part.

We do not condone the lapse of time between the hearing in this matter and the entry of the order appealed; however, we find that the delay in the context of this case was not prejudicial under the “staleness” concept enunciated by Justice England in his concurring opinion in Scottie-Croft Boat Corporation v. Smith, 336 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1976).

Although we recognize that the order entered by the deputy commissioner is not a model of clarity as pertains to the basis upon which he found the claim com-pensable, we have reviewed the record on appeal and find that there is competent, substantial evidence to support the deputy’s determination of compensability under the exposure theory of accident3 discussed in Festa v. Teleflex, Inc., 382 So.2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The materials to which claimant was exposed either caused or, at the least, aggravated his condition. Accordingly, the determination of compensa-bility is affirmed.

Two contentions raised by appellants require reversal. First, appellee has conceded on appeal that the award of penalties was error; thus, that award is hereby reversed. Second, that portion of the order requiring the employer/carrier to reimburse the claimant for past medical bills is not supported by competent, substantial evidence because claimant failed to submit medical bills into evidence, apparently due to a misunderstanding between all concerned as to the scope of the hearing. The cause is accordingly remanded to the deputy commissioner to accord the claimant the opportunity to do so. In all other respects, the order appealed is affirmed,

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., BOOTH and WIGGINTON JJ. concur

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

Related

Metropolitan Dade Co. v. Moss
568 So. 2d 492 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Harrington v. Vida Appliance Corp.
542 So. 2d 1006 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
438 So. 2d 990, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dade-county-school-board-v-albert-fladistctapp-1983.