Rio Miami Corp. v. Balbuena

756 So. 2d 258, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5256, 2000 WL 525830
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 3, 2000·No. No. 3D98-3296·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court erred in granting the plaintiff/appellee’s motion to reinstate maintenance and cure because contradicting medical evidence existed which indicated the plaintiffiappellee had not reached maximum medical improvement. See Langmead v. Admiral Cruises, Inc., 610 So.2d 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Quarrel v. Minervini, 510 So.2d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA [259]*2591987), review denied, 519 So.2d 987 (Fla.1988).

Accordingly, the order below is reversed and the case is remanded with instructions to send the issue to the jury: See Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So.2d 101 (Fla.1968); Quarrel v. Minervini, 510 So.2d at 977.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Rio Miami Corp. v. Balbuena, 756 So. 2d 258, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5256, 2000 WL 525830 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

756 So. 2d 258 (Rio Miami Corp. v. Balbuena) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

GOD'S BLESSING LTD. v. KATHY SALAS
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2022
Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Howard
452 S.W.3d 40 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014)
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Rigby
96 So. 3d 1146 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)