Wisznia v. Leon County Division of Animal Control
This text of 902 So. 2d 271 (Wisznia v. Leon County Division of Animal Control) 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
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND/OR CLARIFICATION
We grant appellees’ Motion for Rehearing and/or Clarification to the extent that we withdraw our previous opinion and substitute the following:
In this workers’ compensation case, as in Cromartie v. City of St. Petersburg, 882 So.2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), our review of the record satisfies us that the record does not contain competent and substantial evidence to support the determination of the judge of compensation claims that clear and convincing evidence existed sufficient to reject the appointed expert medical advisor’s opinion that the claimant had sustained a psychiatric injury as a result of the compensable workplace accident. Accordingly, as in Cromartie, we reverse the order denying the petition to the extent that petition requested psychiatric care, and remand with directions that the judge of compensation claims enter an order granting the request for such care.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
902 So. 2d 271, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 7440, 2005 WL 1172028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wisznia-v-leon-county-division-of-animal-control-fladistctapp-2005.