Palm Beach Dermatology v. Mikan

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Palm Beach Dermatology v. Mikan

936 So. 2d 671, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 12327, 2006 WL 2056393

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 26, 2006

DocketNo. 1D05-0956

StatusPublished

This text of 936 So. 2d 671 (Palm Beach Dermatology v. Mikan) 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

Palm Beach Dermatology v. Mikan, 936 So. 2d 671, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 12327, 2006 WL 2056393 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The employer/carrier appeals an order awarding permanent total disability [672]*672(PTD) benefits to the claimant, appellee. We reverse. The record shows that the claimant has not reached actual maximum medical improvement (MMI). Where a claimant has not reached MMI by the expiration of the temporary benefit period and has presented no competent substantial evidence that she will be totally disabled when she does reach MMI, any claim for PTD benefits is premature. Olmo v. Rehabcare Starmed/SRS, 930 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). In this case, the claimant has not provided any competent substantial evidence that she will be totally disabled when she does reach MMI. Therefore, the award of PTD benefits, notwithstanding that claimant was no longer entitled to temporary benefits, constituted error. See generally id.

WOLF, VAN NORTWICK, and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The employer/carrier appeals an order awarding permanent total disability [672]*672(PTD) benefits to the claimant, appellee. We reverse. The record shows that the claimant has not reached actual maximum medical improvement (MMI). Where a claimant has not reached MMI by the expiration of the temporary benefit period and has presented no competent substantial evidence that she will be totally disabled when she does reach MMI, any claim for PTD benefits is premature. Olmo v. Rehabcare Starmed/SRS, 930 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). In this case, the claimant has not provided any competent substantial evidence that she will be totally disabled when she does reach MMI. Therefore, the award of PTD benefits, notwithstanding that claimant was no longer entitled to temporary benefits, constituted error. See generally id.

WOLF, VAN NORTWICK, and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

936 So. 2d 671, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 12327, 2006 WL 2056393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palm-beach-dermatology-v-mikan-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack