Martin Marietta v. Blanding

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Martin Marietta v. Blanding

642 So. 2d 71, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8477, 1994 WL 463494

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 30, 1994

DocketNo. 93-671

StatusPublished

This text of 642 So. 2d 71 (Martin Marietta v. Blanding) 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

Martin Marietta v. Blanding, 642 So. 2d 71, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8477, 1994 WL 463494 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from an order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC) finding claimant Willie Blanding’s lower back injury to be compensable under repetitive trauma theory. The JCC ordered the employer and carrier to pay temporary total and temporary partial disability benefits and all related medical bills. We hold that there is competent, substantial evidence to support the JCC’s order and affirm.

We are required to remand, however, because the JCC ordered the employer and carrier to pay medical bills which were neither testified to nor placed into evidence at hearing. See Town and Country Farms v. Peck, 611 So.2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Martin Marietta Corp. v. dumb, 523 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). On remand, the claimant shall have the opportunity to submit proper proof of the amounts of the medical bills in question.

BOOTH, ALLEN, and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from an order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC) finding claimant Willie Blanding’s lower back injury to be compensable under repetitive trauma theory. The JCC ordered the employer and carrier to pay temporary total and temporary partial disability benefits and all related medical bills. We hold that there is competent, substantial evidence to support the JCC’s order and affirm.

We are required to remand, however, because the JCC ordered the employer and carrier to pay medical bills which were neither testified to nor placed into evidence at hearing. See Town and Country Farms v. Peck, 611 So.2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Martin Marietta Corp. v. dumb, 523 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). On remand, the claimant shall have the opportunity to submit proper proof of the amounts of the medical bills in question.

BOOTH, ALLEN, and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

642 So. 2d 71, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8477, 1994 WL 463494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-marietta-v-blanding-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack