Goodings Supermarket v. Aldrich

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Goodings Supermarket v. Aldrich

513 So. 2d 765, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2374, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12263

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 7, 1987

DocketNo. BR-355

StatusPublished

This text of 513 So. 2d 765 (Goodings Supermarket v. Aldrich) 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

Goodings Supermarket v. Aldrich, 513 So. 2d 765, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2374, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12263 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal of an order of the deputy commissioner awarding claimant back therapy at a rehabilitation [766]*766center and temporary total disability benefits during the treatment period. The deputy commissioner viewed claimant’s complaints of hip pain as referring to back pain, a supposition not supported by the record, and found a causal relationship between the industrial accident and the back condition. We have carefully reviewed the record and find no competent, substantial evidence to support the deputy’s award. Consequently, we must reverse and remand for entry of an order denying benefits.

BOOTH, WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal of an order of the deputy commissioner awarding claimant back therapy at a rehabilitation [766]*766center and temporary total disability benefits during the treatment period. The deputy commissioner viewed claimant’s complaints of hip pain as referring to back pain, a supposition not supported by the record, and found a causal relationship between the industrial accident and the back condition. We have carefully reviewed the record and find no competent, substantial evidence to support the deputy’s award. Consequently, we must reverse and remand for entry of an order denying benefits.

BOOTH, WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

513 So. 2d 765, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2374, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodings-supermarket-v-aldrich-fladistctapp-1987.