HRS District IV v. East

District Court of Appeal of Florida

HRS District IV v. East

632 So. 2d 719, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1704, 1994 WL 64920

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 7, 1994

DocketNo. 92-3667

StatusPublished

This text of 632 So. 2d 719 (HRS District IV v. East) 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

HRS District IV v. East, 632 So. 2d 719, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1704, 1994 WL 64920 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Employer/Carrier appeal from an order awarding Claimant indemnity benefits, statutory penalties, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs; and directing authorization of a doctor for an evaluation and any necessary treatment. The facts in the record and the Florida statutory and decisional law demonstrate Claimant’s entitlement to indemnity benefits. We affirm the order in all respects except for the method of calculating Claimant’s average weekly wage (AWW). Prior to the issuance of the order, the Judge of Compensation Claims did not have the benefit of our recent en banc opinion in Vegas v. Globe Security, 627 So.2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993. We must reverse that portion of the order determining AWW and remand for further proceedings consistent with Vegas and with section 440.14, Florida Statutes.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.

BOOTH, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Employer/Carrier appeal from an order awarding Claimant indemnity benefits, statutory penalties, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs; and directing authorization of a doctor for an evaluation and any necessary treatment. The facts in the record and the Florida statutory and decisional law demonstrate Claimant’s entitlement to indemnity benefits. We affirm the order in all respects except for the method of calculating Claimant’s average weekly wage (AWW). Prior to the issuance of the order, the Judge of Compensation Claims did not have the benefit of our recent en banc opinion in Vegas v. Globe Security, 627 So.2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993. We must reverse that portion of the order determining AWW and remand for further proceedings consistent with Vegas and with section 440.14, Florida Statutes.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.

BOOTH, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

632 So. 2d 719, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1704, 1994 WL 64920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hrs-district-iv-v-east-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack