Seasons From Sarasota v. O'DAY

379 So. 2d 1024
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 14, 1980
DocketQQ-56
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 379 So. 2d 1024 (Seasons From Sarasota v. O'DAY) 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
Seasons From Sarasota v. O'DAY, 379 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

379 So.2d 1024 (1980)

The SEASONS FROM SARASOTA (Four Seasons Apts.) and Continental National American Group, Appellants,
v.
Michael Joseph O'DAY, Sunrise Cove Condominiums and Florida Farm Bureau, Appellees.

No. QQ-56.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 14, 1980.

*1025 Richard A. Valeri of MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellants.

Peter W. Martin of Nelson, Hesse, Cyril, Weber, Smith & Widman, and John J. O'Riorden, Sarasota, for appellees.

Michael Joseph O'Day, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

The employer/carrier appeals a worker's compensation order wherein the judge divided the responsibility for medical benefits between two carriers. The claimant had sustained multiple accidents, with different carriers "on risk." While § 440.02(18), Fla. Stat., indicates that medical benefits are not apportionable, this provision governs disputes between a claimant and an employer/carrier, and does not apply to disputes between multiple carriers. Rowe and Mitchell v. Rodgers, 378 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 1 DCA 1979). Disputes between carriers are governed by § 440.42(3), Fla. Stat., which empowers the judge to divide medical costs according to each carrier's responsibility. Id.

In the present case, the judge required the first carrier to pay for medical costs which the record indicates were attributable to the first injury independent of the subsequent injury. Such etiological responsibility comports with Rowe and Mitchell v. Rodgers, supra.

Accordingly, the order appealed is hereby affirmed.

ERVIN, SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Cruise Quality Painting v. Paige
564 So. 2d 1190 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Flagship National Bank of Broward County v. Hinkle
479 So. 2d 828 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
FLAGSHIP NAT. BK. OF BROWARD v. Hinkle
479 So. 2d 828 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Structural Systems, Inc. v. Worthen
463 So. 2d 502 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
US Elec. Co. v. Sisk Elec. Service, Inc.
417 So. 2d 738 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Bell Rentals and Sales v. Harvey
405 So. 2d 289 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Neff v. Britto
404 So. 2d 416 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Heter v. Buning the Florist
396 So. 2d 1201 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Broward Indus. Plating, Inc. v. Weiby
394 So. 2d 1117 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
379 So. 2d 1024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seasons-from-sarasota-v-oday-fladistctapp-1980.