Day v. Inland Construction

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Day v. Inland Construction

450 So. 2d 1255, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13544

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 12, 1984

DocketNo. AV-307

StatusPublished

This text of 450 So. 2d 1255 (Day v. Inland Construction) 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

Day v. Inland Construction, 450 So. 2d 1255, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13544 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

WIGGINTON, Judge.

We affirm the deputy commissioner’s order denying claimant’s request for psychiatric care and orthopedic treatment by Dr. Gutman, and authorizing and reauthorizing Dr. Stanford and Dr. Maleki, respectively, to provide any future orthopedic care if necessary. The deputy’s finding that claimant is not in need of psychiatric care as a result of his industrial accident is supported by competent and substantial evidence, as is his finding that claimant has been provided appropriate orthopedic care by the physicians authorized by the employer/carrier. Also, the deputy gave a reasonable explanation for rejecting Dr. Gutman’s opinions. For these reasons, we find the circumstances in this case to be clearly distinguishable from those in McCandless v. M.M. Parrish Construction, 449 So.2d 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

AFFIRMED.

MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

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

WIGGINTON, Judge.

We affirm the deputy commissioner’s order denying claimant’s request for psychiatric care and orthopedic treatment by Dr. Gutman, and authorizing and reauthorizing Dr. Stanford and Dr. Maleki, respectively, to provide any future orthopedic care if necessary. The deputy’s finding that claimant is not in need of psychiatric care as a result of his industrial accident is supported by competent and substantial evidence, as is his finding that claimant has been provided appropriate orthopedic care by the physicians authorized by the employer/carrier. Also, the deputy gave a reasonable explanation for rejecting Dr. Gutman’s opinions. For these reasons, we find the circumstances in this case to be clearly distinguishable from those in McCandless v. M.M. Parrish Construction, 449 So.2d 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

AFFIRMED.

MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

450 So. 2d 1255, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/day-v-inland-construction-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack