Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Gutkin v. Lakeland Automall

Gutkin v. Lakeland Automall

867 So. 2d 581, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2674, 2004 WL 393168
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 4, 2004·No. No. 1D03-0239·Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

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.

BARFIELD and POLSTON, JJ., concur; ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.

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

Gutkin v. Lakeland Automall, 867 So. 2d 581, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2674, 2004 WL 393168 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

867 So. 2d 581 (Gutkin v. Lakeland Automall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Neavins v. City of St. Petersburg
823 So. 2d 288 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Turner v. G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hosp.
600 So. 2d 1153 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Jefferson v. Wayne Dalton Corp./Hartford
793 So. 2d 1081 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Closet Maid v. Sykes
763 So. 2d 377 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Ackley v. General Parcel Service
646 So. 2d 242 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Chavarria v. Selugal Clothing, Inc.
840 So. 2d 1071 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)