Montgomery Insurance v. Deyo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Montgomery Insurance v. Deyo

876 So. 2d 697, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 9011, 2004 WL 1439693

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 29, 2004

DocketNo. 1D03-3856

StatusPublished

This text of 876 So. 2d 697 (Montgomery Insurance v. Deyo) 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

Montgomery Insurance v. Deyo, 876 So. 2d 697, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 9011, 2004 WL 1439693 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, the employer and carrier seek review of a final order directing them to reimburse the claimant for the cost of a new “handicap-accommodated” van. Based upon Caron v. Systematic Air Services, 576 So.2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), we reject the employer’s and carrier’s argument that the issue of entitlement to such an award is barred by res judicata. However, because the claimant failed clearly to establish her entitlement to reimbursement for a new “handicap-accommodated” van as opposed to the 24-hour-a-day convenient alternative transportation for the claimant and her caregiver offered by the employer and carrier, we are constrained to reverse the award of reimbursement for the van based upon our decision in Kraft Dairy Group v. Cohen, 645 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The pertinent facts are indistinguishable from those in Kraft. Accordingly, as in Kraft, we must reverse.

REVERSED.

WEBSTER, VAN NORTWICK and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, the employer and carrier seek review of a final order directing them to reimburse the claimant for the cost of a new “handicap-accommodated” van. Based upon Caron v. Systematic Air Services, 576 So.2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), we reject the employer’s and carrier’s argument that the issue of entitlement to such an award is barred by res judicata. However, because the claimant failed clearly to establish her entitlement to reimbursement for a new “handicap-accommodated” van as opposed to the 24-hour-a-day convenient alternative transportation for the claimant and her caregiver offered by the employer and carrier, we are constrained to reverse the award of reimbursement for the van based upon our decision in Kraft Dairy Group v. Cohen, 645 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The pertinent facts are indistinguishable from those in Kraft. Accordingly, as in Kraft, we must reverse.

REVERSED.

WEBSTER, VAN NORTWICK and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

876 So. 2d 697, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 9011, 2004 WL 1439693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montgomery-insurance-v-deyo-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack