Groseclose v. Optimum Oncology-Comprehensive Cancer Center

210 So. 3d 690, 2013 WL 5744560, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 16897
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 23, 2013·No. No. 1D12-3912·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant appeals an order of the Judge of [691] Compensation Claims (JCC) denying permanent total disability (PTD) benefits and associated penalties, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. Because neither the parties nor the JCC had the benefit of Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg/St. Petersburg Risk Management and State of Florida, 122 So.3d 440 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), and the considerations therein thus were not addressed below, we reverse the order, and remand the case for further proceedings. See generally City of Pensacola v. Capital Realty Holding Co., 417 So.2d 687, 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (“It is well settled that upon reversal and remand with general directions for further proceedings, a trial judge is vested with broad discretion in handling or directing the course of the cause thereafter.”).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

VAN NORTWICK, MARSTILLER, and RAY, JJ., concur.

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

Groseclose v. Optimum Oncology-Comprehensive Cancer Center, 210 So. 3d 690, 2013 WL 5744560, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 16897 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

210 So. 3d 690 (Groseclose v. Optimum Oncology-Comprehensive Cancer Center) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Pensacola v. Capital Realty Holding Co., Inc.
417 So. 2d 687 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg/City of St. Petersburg Risk Management
122 So. 3d 440 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)