Service Painting/Amerisure Companies v. Goff

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Service Painting/Amerisure Companies v. Goff

724 So. 2d 1262, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 812, 1999 WL 36300

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 29, 1999

DocketNo. 98-4666

StatusPublished

This text of 724 So. 2d 1262 (Service Painting/Amerisure Companies v. Goff) 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

Service Painting/Amerisure Companies v. Goff, 724 So. 2d 1262, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 812, 1999 WL 36300 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners, the employer/carrier in the proceedings below, petition this court for certiorari review of an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims denying their motion to appoint expert medical advisors pursuant to section 440.13(9), Florida Statutes. While [1263]*1263petitioners have made a showing of potential error in the ruling complained of, the exercise of our certiorari jurisdiction is warranted only upon a showing that any such error cannot be adequately remedied on appeal from a final order. See Diestel v. Winfrey Plumbing, Inc., 668 So.2d 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Despite petitioners’ argument to the contrary, we conclude that if error did occur, any harm occasioned thereby can be adequately remedied on appeal. Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

BOOTH, LAWRENCE and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners, the employer/carrier in the proceedings below, petition this court for certiorari review of an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims denying their motion to appoint expert medical advisors pursuant to section 440.13(9), Florida Statutes. While [1263]*1263petitioners have made a showing of potential error in the ruling complained of, the exercise of our certiorari jurisdiction is warranted only upon a showing that any such error cannot be adequately remedied on appeal from a final order. See Diestel v. Winfrey Plumbing, Inc., 668 So.2d 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Despite petitioners’ argument to the contrary, we conclude that if error did occur, any harm occasioned thereby can be adequately remedied on appeal. Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

BOOTH, LAWRENCE and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

724 So. 2d 1262, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 812, 1999 WL 36300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/service-paintingamerisure-companies-v-goff-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack