Phillips v. Pools By Andrew
Opinion
Albert Phillips appeals from an order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC) which granted the employer/carrier’s motion “to evaluate the claimant to determine the need for, and the kind of service necessary and appropriate to restore the claimant to suitable gainful employment.” We reverse the order of the JCC because there was no evidence presented or factual findings to support the need for the evaluation. See Strawter v. Atlas Steel Fence, Inc., 578 So.2d 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Dimirra Dev., Inc. v. Mills, 501 So.2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).1
In light of our holding, it is unnecessary for us to address the application of section 440.49(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1990),2 to accidents which occurred prior to October 1, 1989, or the statute’s application to mandated evaluations versus mandated vocational rehabilitation.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
620 So. 2d 261 (Phillips v. Pools By Andrew) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.