Mapp v. Armco Specialty Steel Division

543 So. 2d 1296, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1284, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2989, 1989 WL 57835
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 25, 1989
DocketNo. 88-705
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 543 So. 2d 1296 (Mapp v. Armco Specialty Steel Division) 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
Mapp v. Armco Specialty Steel Division, 543 So. 2d 1296, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1284, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2989, 1989 WL 57835 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, claimant/appellant appeals from an order of the deputy commissioner (dc) in which (1) he was denied wage loss and rehabilitative benefits; and (2) his request to be evaluated by another physician was denied. As to those portions of the dc's order denying wage loss benefits and refusing to authorize claimant/appellant’s examination by yet another physician, we affirm because those holdings are supported by competent substantial evidence. We do not reach the dc's denial of rehabilitative benefits because, contrary to the requirement of Fla.R.App.P. 9.210(b)(5), claimant/appellant has failed to include in his brief or argue the point.

In ruling on this issue below, the dc noted that claimant/appellant offered no testimony or argument with respect to rehabilitation thereby impelling the conclusion that this claim had been abandoned. Thus, like the dc, we are left to speculate as to the reason(s) for the non-inclusion and non-argument of the claim before this court. Since we have neither the time nor the inclination to plumb the depths of the record in search of matters that could have been raised on appeal, we hold that claimant/appellant waived his claim for rehabilitative benefits by failing to comply with the aforementioned rule.

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH and MINER, JJ., concur. JOANOS, J., concurs in result only.

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

Related

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Shaw
967 So. 2d 1011 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO. INS. CO. v. Shaw
967 So. 2d 1011 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
McKinzie v. State
845 So. 2d 316 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
543 So. 2d 1296, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1284, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2989, 1989 WL 57835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mapp-v-armco-specialty-steel-division-fladistctapp-1989.