Woolworth v. Perez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Woolworth v. Perez

393 So. 2d 1157, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19475

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 6, 1981

DocketNo. UU-336

StatusPublished

This text of 393 So. 2d 1157 (Woolworth v. Perez) 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

Woolworth v. Perez, 393 So. 2d 1157, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19475 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.

The deputy commissioner erred in failing to rule on the issue of disability attributable to loss of wage earning capacity and in purporting to reserve ruling on that issue “until proof is submitted that adequate job search and attempted rehabilitation has ended in failure.” Coe v. Kentucky Fried Chicken et al., 393 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The claim for permanent disability benefits greater than for the adjudicated anatomic disability was therefore not sustained and must now be denied nunc pro tunc the date of the deputy’s order, March 10, 1980, without prejudice to a proper application based on changed circumstances. The order is not otherwise in error.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

MILLS, C. J., and WENTWORTH, J., concur.

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

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.

The deputy commissioner erred in failing to rule on the issue of disability attributable to loss of wage earning capacity and in purporting to reserve ruling on that issue “until proof is submitted that adequate job search and attempted rehabilitation has ended in failure.” Coe v. Kentucky Fried Chicken et al., 393 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The claim for permanent disability benefits greater than for the adjudicated anatomic disability was therefore not sustained and must now be denied nunc pro tunc the date of the deputy’s order, March 10, 1980, without prejudice to a proper application based on changed circumstances. The order is not otherwise in error.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

MILLS, C. J., and WENTWORTH, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

393 So. 2d 1157, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woolworth-v-perez-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack