Reynolds v. Skagfield Corp.
This text of 887 So. 2d 434 (Reynolds v. Skagfield Corp.) 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.
Opinion
John REYNOLDS, Appellant,
v.
SKAGFIELD CORP., d/b/a Skandia Liberty Mutual, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Patrick John McGinley, Esquire, Winter Park; Bill McCabe, Esquire, Longwood, for Appellant.
Mary L. Wakeman, Esquire, McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod, Pope & Weaver, P. A., Tallahassee, for Appellee.
*435 PER CURIAM.
Claimant John Reynolds appeals the order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC), arguing that the JCC erred in determining the compensability of claimant's back condition and that there was no competent substantial evidence to support the JCC's determination that the Claimant was not entitled to temporary partial disability benefits and attorney's fees. We agree, and the employer/carrier concede, that the JCC improperly determined the compensability of claimant's back condition because the issue was not before the JCC. See S.E. Recycling v. Cottongim, 639 So.2d 155, 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). We, therefore, reverse the JCC's order as to this finding. We affirm the JCC's order in all other respects without further comment.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
KAHN, WEBSTER and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
887 So. 2d 434, 2004 WL 2726027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynolds-v-skagfield-corp-fladistctapp-2004.