Robison v. Chance Harvesting Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Robison v. Chance Harvesting Co.

478 So. 2d 1104, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2471, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16603

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 5, 1985

DocketNo. BD-309

StatusPublished

This text of 478 So. 2d 1104 (Robison v. Chance Harvesting Co.) 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

Robison v. Chance Harvesting Co., 478 So. 2d 1104, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2471, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16603 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

NIMMONS, Judge.

We find there is competent substantial evidence to support the deputy’s order and therefore affirm without prejudice to the claimant to pursue his claim for wage loss benefits.

We take this opportunity to note a disturbing aspect of claimant’s attorney’s advocacy in this case. This was a claim for PTD. In his initial brief, appellant’s attorney made the following representation:

Dr. Castellvi testified that “I feel that he is permanently and totally disabled— within reasonable medical certainty.” (Emphasis in original.)

He repeated this quote later in the brief. In fact, a review of Dr. Castellvi’s testimony shows that the doctor had misread his records and immediately corrected himself to state that the claimant was not permanently and totally disabled. Appellant’s brief failed to mention such correction and, although appellee’s brief pointed out such omission, appellant’s attorney has not seen fit to correct his misleading statement either via his reply brief or otherwise.

Such lack of candor is a disservice to both the client and this court.

AFFIRMED.

ZEHMER, J., and McCORD, G. (Ret.) Associate Judge, concur.

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