Harrison v. Florida State Hospital

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harrison v. Florida State Hospital

631 So. 2d 318, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 289, 1994 WL 17246

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 25, 1994

DocketNo. 92-3844

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 631 So. 2d 318 (Harrison v. Florida State Hospital) 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

Harrison v. Florida State Hospital, 631 So. 2d 318, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 289, 1994 WL 17246 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ALLEN, Judge.

The claimant appeals a workers’ compensation order in which the judge found that the claimant failed to establish an industrial cause of injury. In making this finding the judge indicated that Dr. Bontrager deferred to Dr. Martin as to causation, and that Martin deferred to Dr. Kohler, who could not causally relate the injury to the employment. However, Bontrager’s deposition reveals that he deferred to Martin only with regard to the claimant’s treatment, and that he did not fully defer as to the question of causation. Although the judge need not always completely describe the reasons for accepting or rejecting testimony, the ultimate findings should delineate the basis of the ruling and must be supported by competent substantial evidence. See, e.g., Carson v. Gaineswood Condominiums, 532 So.2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Because the explanation as to the basis of the ruling in the present ease is not entirely supported by the record evidence, we reverse and remand for additional clarification or further consideration.

ERVIN and SMITH, JJ., concur.

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

ALLEN, Judge.

The claimant appeals a workers’ compensation order in which the judge found that the claimant failed to establish an industrial cause of injury. In making this finding the judge indicated that Dr. Bontrager deferred to Dr. Martin as to causation, and that Martin deferred to Dr. Kohler, who could not causally relate the injury to the employment. However, Bontrager’s deposition reveals that he deferred to Martin only with regard to the claimant’s treatment, and that he did not fully defer as to the question of causation. Although the judge need not always completely describe the reasons for accepting or rejecting testimony, the ultimate findings should delineate the basis of the ruling and must be supported by competent substantial evidence. See, e.g., Carson v. Gaineswood Condominiums, 532 So.2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Because the explanation as to the basis of the ruling in the present ease is not entirely supported by the record evidence, we reverse and remand for additional clarification or further consideration.

ERVIN and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

631 So. 2d 318, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 289, 1994 WL 17246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-v-florida-state-hospital-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack