Prewitt v. Principal Health Care

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Prewitt v. Principal Health Care

752 So. 2d 96, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 1926, 2000 WL 220431

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 28, 2000

DocketNo. 1D99-1391

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 752 So. 2d 96 (Prewitt v. Principal Health Care) 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

Prewitt v. Principal Health Care, 752 So. 2d 96, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 1926, 2000 WL 220431 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, we affirm the denial of benefits based upon the finding that claimant’s work was not the major contributing cause of her bilateral carpel tunnel syndrome. However, we reverse the denial of benefits based upon the finding that claimant’s work did not produce a disabling aggravation of a preexisting, asymptomatic, condition, and remand for further consideration in light of our decision in J & J Enterprises v. Oweis, 733 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). We note that the judge of compensation claims did not have the benefit of that opinion when called upon to decide this matter.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

KAHN, WEBSTER and PADOVANO, 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, we affirm the denial of benefits based upon the finding that claimant’s work was not the major contributing cause of her bilateral carpel tunnel syndrome. However, we reverse the denial of benefits based upon the finding that claimant’s work did not produce a disabling aggravation of a preexisting, asymptomatic, condition, and remand for further consideration in light of our decision in J & J Enterprises v. Oweis, 733 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). We note that the judge of compensation claims did not have the benefit of that opinion when called upon to decide this matter.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

KAHN, WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

752 So. 2d 96, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 1926, 2000 WL 220431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prewitt-v-principal-health-care-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack