Robishaw v. Mobil Oil Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Robishaw v. Mobil Oil Corp.

675 So. 2d 1036, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6906, 1996 WL 364758

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 2, 1996

DocketNo. 93-3955

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 675 So. 2d 1036 (Robishaw v. Mobil Oil 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.

Bluebook

Robishaw v. Mobil Oil Corp., 675 So. 2d 1036, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6906, 1996 WL 364758 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

BARFIELD, Chief Judge.

Having considered carefully the issues raised on appeal, we find no merit in those issues with the exception of the claim of appellant that the judge of compensation claims erred in not authorizing payment of Dr. Kulick’s bill. • The compensation order is silent as to the issue of Dr. Kulick’s bill, and while it may be considered that the judge denied payment by implication because he found the service unrelated to the industrial accident, we are unable to accept that argument on the face of the record. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the judge of compensation claims for a specific finding and determination with respect to Dr. Kulick’s bill. Otherwise, the decision of the judge of compensation claims is Affirmed.

KAHN, J., and SHIVERS, Senior Judge, concur.

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

BARFIELD, Chief Judge.

Having considered carefully the issues raised on appeal, we find no merit in those issues with the exception of the claim of appellant that the judge of compensation claims erred in not authorizing payment of Dr. Kulick’s bill. • The compensation order is silent as to the issue of Dr. Kulick’s bill, and while it may be considered that the judge denied payment by implication because he found the service unrelated to the industrial accident, we are unable to accept that argument on the face of the record. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the judge of compensation claims for a specific finding and determination with respect to Dr. Kulick’s bill. Otherwise, the decision of the judge of compensation claims is Affirmed.

KAHN, J., and SHIVERS, Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

675 So. 2d 1036, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6906, 1996 WL 364758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robishaw-v-mobil-oil-corp-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack