Hollingsworth v. Staffing Concepts

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hollingsworth v. Staffing Concepts

805 So. 2d 1111, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1119, 2002 WL 181272

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 6, 2002

DocketNo. 1D01-5109

StatusPublished

This text of 805 So. 2d 1111 (Hollingsworth v. Staffing Concepts) 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

Hollingsworth v. Staffing Concepts, 805 So. 2d 1111, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1119, 2002 WL 181272 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, claimant below in a workers’ compensation proceeding, asks this court to issue a writ of certiorari to review and quash the order of the Judge of Compensation Claims which denied claimant’s request for an independent medical examination with a specialist whose fee would be more than is permitted by rule. See City of Riviera Beach v. Napier, 791 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Petitioner contends that no qualified examiner in claimant’s geographic area will conduct the examination for the authorized fee. We conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate any injury which cannot be remedied on appeal from a final order. See Boyd v. Pheo, Inc., 664 So.2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA [1112]*11121995). Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

PETITION DENIED.

BOOTH, BARFIELD and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, claimant below in a workers’ compensation proceeding, asks this court to issue a writ of certiorari to review and quash the order of the Judge of Compensation Claims which denied claimant’s request for an independent medical examination with a specialist whose fee would be more than is permitted by rule. See City of Riviera Beach v. Napier, 791 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Petitioner contends that no qualified examiner in claimant’s geographic area will conduct the examination for the authorized fee. We conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate any injury which cannot be remedied on appeal from a final order. See Boyd v. Pheo, Inc., 664 So.2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA [1112]*11121995). Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

PETITION DENIED.

BOOTH, BARFIELD and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

805 So. 2d 1111, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1119, 2002 WL 181272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollingsworth-v-staffing-concepts-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack