Gutkin v. Lakeland Automall
This text of 867 So. 2d 581 (Gutkin v. Lakeland Automall) 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.
Opinions
This is an appeal from a final workers’ compensation order denying compensability of a claim tried under a repetitive trauma theory. The judge of compensation claims (JCC) found the claimant’s non-work related injuries were the major contributing cause of the claimant’s back condition and his need for medical care and treatment. A workers’ compensation order deciding compensability of a claim is reviewed under a competent substantial evidence (CSE) standard. See Neavins v. City of St. Petersburg, 823 So.2d 288 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
We conclude the record contains CSE to support the JCC’s determination that claimant did not sustain a work-related accident. Therefore, we affirm the JCC’s order denying compensability of claimant’s low back condition.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
867 So. 2d 581, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2674, 2004 WL 393168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gutkin-v-lakeland-automall-fladistctapp-2004.