Sanchez v. Marseilles Hotel

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sanchez v. Marseilles Hotel

792 So. 2d 1287, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12828, 2001 WL 1035953

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 11, 2001

DocketNo. 1D00-2603

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 792 So. 2d 1287 (Sanchez v. Marseilles Hotel) 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

Sanchez v. Marseilles Hotel, 792 So. 2d 1287, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12828, 2001 WL 1035953 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final order denying benefits in this workers’ compensation case on [1288]*1288grounds Valentin Sanchez failed to prove that The Marseilles Hotel was his “statutory employer.” See § 440.10(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). Mr. Sanchez worked for a hotel tenant, Vittorio’s Restaurant. The judge of compensation claims found that The Marseilles Hotel never made a contract, performance of any part of which was delegated to Vittorio’s Restaurant. See Keith v. News & Sun Sentinel Co., 667 So.2d 167, 169 (Fla.1995). Testimony that the lease was the only agreement of any kind between the hotel and the restaurant was uncontroverted.

Affirmed.

WEBSTER and BENTON, JJ., concur; ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final order denying benefits in this workers’ compensation case on [1288]*1288grounds Valentin Sanchez failed to prove that The Marseilles Hotel was his “statutory employer.” See § 440.10(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). Mr. Sanchez worked for a hotel tenant, Vittorio’s Restaurant. The judge of compensation claims found that The Marseilles Hotel never made a contract, performance of any part of which was delegated to Vittorio’s Restaurant. See Keith v. News & Sun Sentinel Co., 667 So.2d 167, 169 (Fla.1995). Testimony that the lease was the only agreement of any kind between the hotel and the restaurant was uncontroverted.

Affirmed.

WEBSTER and BENTON, JJ., concur; ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

792 So. 2d 1287, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12828, 2001 WL 1035953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanchez-v-marseilles-hotel-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack