Ferguson v. Elna Elec., Inc.
This text of 421 So. 2d 805 (Ferguson v. Elna Elec., 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.
Opinion
Michael FERGUSON, Appellant,
v.
ELNA ELECTRIC, INC., Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
*806 Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, William Huggett and Arnold Ginsberg, Miami, for appellant.
Pyszka & Kessler and William G. Edwards, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the summary judgment solely for the reason that appellant, having demanded and been paid worker's compensation benefits, was estopped to deny that he was injured while in the course and scope of his employment. Matthews v. G.S.P. Corporation, 354 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). We specifically do not decide, because it is unnecessary, whether appellee was in fact engaged in a special errand for his employer when he was injured.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
421 So. 2d 805, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 28180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferguson-v-elna-elec-inc-fladistctapp-1982.