Harris Semiconductor v. Driver

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harris Semiconductor v. Driver

732 So. 2d 334, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12458, 1998 WL 689761

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 7, 1998

DocketNo. 97-4957

StatusPublished

This text of 732 So. 2d 334 (Harris Semiconductor v. Driver) 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

Harris Semiconductor v. Driver, 732 So. 2d 334, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12458, 1998 WL 689761 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We agree that the claimant is entitled to temporary partial disability benefits but conclude that the judge of compensation claims erred in computing the period of time in which those benefits were due. The claimant reached overall maximum medical improvement on January 23, 1997, [335]*335when she recovered from her foot injury. There is some testimony that she did not recover from her wrist injury until May 27, 1997, but it is clear from the record that this testimony relates- to a pre-existing arthritis condition unconnected with the industrial accident. The claimant had reached maximum medical improvement from the work-related injury to her wrist long before the date applicable to her foot injury. Therefore, the judge of compensation claims should have awarded temporary partial disability payments through January 23, 1997, the date of overall maximum medical improvement. We find no error in any other aspect of the order.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

BOOTH, BENTON and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We agree that the claimant is entitled to temporary partial disability benefits but conclude that the judge of compensation claims erred in computing the period of time in which those benefits were due. The claimant reached overall maximum medical improvement on January 23, 1997, [335]*335when she recovered from her foot injury. There is some testimony that she did not recover from her wrist injury until May 27, 1997, but it is clear from the record that this testimony relates- to a pre-existing arthritis condition unconnected with the industrial accident. The claimant had reached maximum medical improvement from the work-related injury to her wrist long before the date applicable to her foot injury. Therefore, the judge of compensation claims should have awarded temporary partial disability payments through January 23, 1997, the date of overall maximum medical improvement. We find no error in any other aspect of the order.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

BOOTH, BENTON and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

732 So. 2d 334, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12458, 1998 WL 689761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-semiconductor-v-driver-fladistctapp-1998.