Kicklighter v. City of Jacksonville
This text of 978 So. 2d 870 (Kicklighter v. City of Jacksonville) 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
Joseph KICKLIGHTER, Appellant,
v.
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
James H. Daniel and John J. Schickel of Coker, Schickel, Sorenson & Daniel, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.
Richard Mullaney, General Counsel, and Michael J. Arington and Wendy L. Steiner, Assistant General Counsels, Jacksonville, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The record does not contain competent substantial evidence to support the Judge of Compensation Claims' (JCC) finding that claimant, Joseph Kicklighter, was able to engage in at least sedentary employment within a 50-mile radius of his residence. The JCC's determination that claimant was not entitled to permanent total disability (PTD) benefits was based on this finding. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the final compensation order denying claimant PTD benefits and remand with directions for the trial court to enter a new final order awarding claimant PTD benefits pursuant to section 440.15(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2004).
WOLF, KAHN, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
978 So. 2d 870, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 5228, 2008 WL 957754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kicklighter-v-city-of-jacksonville-fladistctapp-2008.