Sunland Center at Miami v. Gilbert

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sunland Center at Miami v. Gilbert

440 So. 2d 26, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23556

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 2, 1983

DocketNo. AR-293

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 440 So. 2d 26 (Sunland Center at Miami v. Gilbert) 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

Sunland Center at Miami v. Gilbert, 440 So. 2d 26, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23556 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.

We find in Dr. Dennis’ testimony and reports substantial competent evidence that, due to her 1976 and 1978 industrial accidents, claimant is unable in the physician’s opinion to return to work. Claimant’s attempts at employment, which she abandoned due to pain associated with her industrial injuries, might properly have been regarded by the deputy not as evidence of her employability but as evidence of her inability to work, excusing a further work search. The consequent finding of a change in condition, the predicate of the modification order, is therefore sustained. However, we remand this cause for further proceedings so that the deputy may correct his incorrect findings regarding claimant’s compensation rate.

AFFIRMED but REMANDED.

BOOTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

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

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.

We find in Dr. Dennis’ testimony and reports substantial competent evidence that, due to her 1976 and 1978 industrial accidents, claimant is unable in the physician’s opinion to return to work. Claimant’s attempts at employment, which she abandoned due to pain associated with her industrial injuries, might properly have been regarded by the deputy not as evidence of her employability but as evidence of her inability to work, excusing a further work search. The consequent finding of a change in condition, the predicate of the modification order, is therefore sustained. However, we remand this cause for further proceedings so that the deputy may correct his incorrect findings regarding claimant’s compensation rate.

AFFIRMED but REMANDED.

BOOTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

440 So. 2d 26, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sunland-center-at-miami-v-gilbert-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack