First Impressions v. Oliva

District Court of Appeal of Florida

First Impressions v. Oliva

485 So. 2d 27, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 674, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6880

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 18, 1986

DocketNo. BH-331

StatusPublished

This text of 485 So. 2d 27 (First Impressions v. Oliva) 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

First Impressions v. Oliva, 485 So. 2d 27, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 674, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6880 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellants, employer/carrier, appeal the deputy commissioner’s finding that appel-lee’s diabetic condition is causally related to his compensable accident. Competent substantial evidence in the record supports the finding of causal relationship and therefore we affirm. However, one sentence of the order needs clarification.

The parties entered into a pretrial stipulation, agreeing that if appellee’s diabetic condition was found to be causally related to his industrial accident, medical bills should be submitted to the carrier for payment and an additional final hearing would be set if further controversy existed. The medical bills are neither contained in the record nor identified with particularity therein. See Florida Refrigerated Service v. Meeks, 470 So.2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In his order, the deputy recognized that the medical bills themselves were not at issue in this case. Nevertheless, in the decretal portion, he ordered the employer/carrier to: “2. Pay the medical bills of the claimant for treatment of his diabetic condition, or the symptoms thereof.” The briefs of the parties indicate that uncertainty exists as to the effect of that portion of the order and as to the procedures to follow in regard to payment of the medical bills. To clarify this apparent confusion, paragraph two of the order is amended to read:

2. The employer shall be responsible for and pay the medical bills of the claimant for treatment of his diabetic condition, or the symptoms thereof, upon submission of the bills to the employer/carrier by the claimant, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the pretrial stipulation.

The order is affirmed as amended.

ERVIN, J., and McCORD, GUYTE P., Jr. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

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

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellants, employer/carrier, appeal the deputy commissioner’s finding that appel-lee’s diabetic condition is causally related to his compensable accident. Competent substantial evidence in the record supports the finding of causal relationship and therefore we affirm. However, one sentence of the order needs clarification.

The parties entered into a pretrial stipulation, agreeing that if appellee’s diabetic condition was found to be causally related to his industrial accident, medical bills should be submitted to the carrier for payment and an additional final hearing would be set if further controversy existed. The medical bills are neither contained in the record nor identified with particularity therein. See Florida Refrigerated Service v. Meeks, 470 So.2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In his order, the deputy recognized that the medical bills themselves were not at issue in this case. Nevertheless, in the decretal portion, he ordered the employer/carrier to: “2. Pay the medical bills of the claimant for treatment of his diabetic condition, or the symptoms thereof.” The briefs of the parties indicate that uncertainty exists as to the effect of that portion of the order and as to the procedures to follow in regard to payment of the medical bills. To clarify this apparent confusion, paragraph two of the order is amended to read:

2. The employer shall be responsible for and pay the medical bills of the claimant for treatment of his diabetic condition, or the symptoms thereof, upon submission of the bills to the employer/carrier by the claimant, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the pretrial stipulation.

The order is affirmed as amended.

ERVIN, J., and McCORD, GUYTE P., Jr. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

485 So. 2d 27, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 674, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-impressions-v-oliva-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack