Walton v. Leon County School Board

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Walton v. Leon County School Board

695 So. 2d 794, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4873, 1997 WL 216220

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 2, 1997

DocketNo. 96-2386

StatusPublished

This text of 695 So. 2d 794 (Walton v. Leon County School Board) 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

Walton v. Leon County School Board, 695 So. 2d 794, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4873, 1997 WL 216220 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

BARFIELD, Chief Judge.

The claimant challenges the final sentence of a workers’ compensation order awarding him temporary partial disability benefits from August through October 1993: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claim of the employee for any further indemnity benefits through the date of this hearing based upon an injury by accident on August 5,1991 is DENIED.” Because the parties acknowledge in their briefs that the judge of compensation claims was describing only temporary benefits (answer brief at page 12 and reply brief at page 4) we are not able to determine why an appeal was taken in this case. A simple effort at phoning would have obviated the necessity for an appeal. We construe the order to mean temporary benefits when it refers to “further indemnity benefits” and affirm the order.

KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

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

BARFIELD, Chief Judge.

The claimant challenges the final sentence of a workers’ compensation order awarding him temporary partial disability benefits from August through October 1993: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claim of the employee for any further indemnity benefits through the date of this hearing based upon an injury by accident on August 5,1991 is DENIED.” Because the parties acknowledge in their briefs that the judge of compensation claims was describing only temporary benefits (answer brief at page 12 and reply brief at page 4) we are not able to determine why an appeal was taken in this case. A simple effort at phoning would have obviated the necessity for an appeal. We construe the order to mean temporary benefits when it refers to “further indemnity benefits” and affirm the order.

KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

695 So. 2d 794, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4873, 1997 WL 216220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walton-v-leon-county-school-board-fladistctapp-1997.