Hawkins v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.
This text of 72 So. 3d 283 (Hawkins v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.) 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.
Opinion
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
We deny Appellant’s motions for rehearing and rehearing en banc, but on our own motion, we withdraw our prior opinion and substitute the following in its place.
Appellant raises two issues in his appeal from an order denying his claims for impairment benefits, temporary disability benefits, and payment of medical expenses. He argues that the Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”) erred by relying on the opinion of one medical expert over another and by failing to make any factual findings to support denial of his request for costs. We affirm, finding that the JCC did not err in resolving conflicts in the medical testimony, and that Appellant failed to preserve for appeal the issue he now raises about inadequate factual findings. See Hamilton v. R.L. Best Int’l, 996 So.2d 233, 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (holding if error is one that first appears in final order, aggrieved party must bring it to JCC’s attention by filing motion for rehearing).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
72 So. 3d 283, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16276, 2011 WL 4905757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawkins-v-publix-super-markets-inc-fladistctapp-2011.