Vaughn v. Moyle Petroleum Co.
This text of 596 So. 2d 129 (Vaughn v. Moyle Petroleum 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.
Opinion
We affirm the Judge of Compensation Claims’ order finding that claimant did not suffer an impact or trauma which would [130]*130lead to the compensability of his emotional disorder. Cf. Polk Nursery Company, Inc. v. Riley, 433 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). However, the record evidence establishes a number of promises made by the employer to claimant and to a health care provider that it was authorizing and would pay for counseling, and would be responsible for claimant’s pay for the time he was off work to receive this counseling. Accordingly, we remand this cause to the JCC to consider the issue of estoppel.1 See, e.g., LaFave v. Bay Consolidated Distributors, 546 So.2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Irigoyen v. Aircraft Services, Inc., 544 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Chemco Electric Supply, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 475 So.2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
AFFIRMED, in part, REVERSED, in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
596 So. 2d 129, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 2497, 1992 WL 48375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vaughn-v-moyle-petroleum-co-fladistctapp-1992.