Hughes v. Chloride, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hughes v. Chloride, Inc.

474 So. 2d 1262, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2083, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15704

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 5, 1985

DocketNo. BD-36

StatusPublished

This text of 474 So. 2d 1262 (Hughes v. Chloride, 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.

Bluebook

Hughes v. Chloride, Inc., 474 So. 2d 1262, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2083, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15704 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the deputy’s denial of past and future medical treatment by Dr. Giulio, since the deputy’s finding that the treatment rendered by Dr. Giulio was not “reasonable and necessary,” Section 440.-13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), was supported by competent, substantial evidence. We also affirm the deputy’s denial of claimant’s claim for TTD benefits. However, the deputy erroneously failed to rule on the question of whether claimant was entitled to TPD benefits, since this issue was ripe for adjudication. Bailey v. Hawes Chrysler-Plymouth, 410 So.2d 986, 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Accordingly, we remand this cause to the deputy for a ruling on this issue.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

SMITH, SHIVERS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the deputy’s denial of past and future medical treatment by Dr. Giulio, since the deputy’s finding that the treatment rendered by Dr. Giulio was not “reasonable and necessary,” Section 440.-13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), was supported by competent, substantial evidence. We also affirm the deputy’s denial of claimant’s claim for TTD benefits. However, the deputy erroneously failed to rule on the question of whether claimant was entitled to TPD benefits, since this issue was ripe for adjudication. Bailey v. Hawes Chrysler-Plymouth, 410 So.2d 986, 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Accordingly, we remand this cause to the deputy for a ruling on this issue.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

SMITH, SHIVERS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 So. 2d 1262, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2083, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-chloride-inc-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack