K-Mart Corp. v. Nasoni

377 So. 2d 821, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 16188
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 13, 1979
DocketQQ-30
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 377 So. 2d 821 (K-Mart Corp. v. Nasoni) 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
K-Mart Corp. v. Nasoni, 377 So. 2d 821, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 16188 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

377 So.2d 821 (1979)

K-MART CORPORATION, Appellant,
v.
Jessie NASONI, Appellee.

No. QQ-30.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 13, 1979.

John F. McMath, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Gerald A. Rosenthal of Kaplan, Sicking, Hessen, Sugarman, Rosenthal & Zientz, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the JIC's order directing the employer to provide examination, *822 evaluation, and recommendations relative to future treatment for the claimant. The record reflects that the employer initially furnished medical treatment and, when claimant's counsel requested an evaluation by a second physician of the claimant's choice, his services were also authorized and paid for by the employer.

The issue presented is whether the judge can require the employer to bear the expense of another evaluation by yet a third physician, in the absence of a conflict in the medical evidence. We believe not. There has been no allegation that the remedial treatment furnished was inadequate or otherwise inappropriate. The order appealed makes no such finding, but is apparently based upon the judge's desire to have a third evaluation in light of the claimant's assertion that she continues to experience pain in the injured thumb. Section 440.29(1), Fla. Stat., would appear to accord him such power, but the cost of such an inquiry cannot, in this instance, be charged to the employer. Lu-Mar Enterprises, Inc. v. Mazur, 8 FCR 248 (1974). The order is accordingly reversed insofar as it directs that the employer provide examination, evaluation and recommendations relative to future treatment for the claimant by Dr. Alexander Angelides.

McCORD, SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Berry Corp. v. Smith
576 So. 2d 1366 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Sanlando Reprographics v. Vidimos
545 So. 2d 397 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
General Mining & Materials v. Triplett
545 So. 2d 385 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Layne-Western Co. v. Cox
497 So. 2d 955 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
BRADLEY CONST. v. White
457 So. 2d 547 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Florida Welding & Erection Service v. Martin
452 So. 2d 101 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Amoco Container Co. v. Singh
418 So. 2d 395 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Heller Bros. v. Avans
414 So. 2d 1191 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Purex Corp. v. Fay
400 So. 2d 1021 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
377 So. 2d 821, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 16188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/k-mart-corp-v-nasoni-fladistctapp-1979.