Dyke v. Leasing, 1D09–1393.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM. |
| Citation | 54 So.3d 642 |
| Parties | Aisha VAN DYKE, Appellant,v.MATRIX EMPLOYEE LEASING and FWCIGA/First Commercial Insurance Company or FCIC c/o USIS, Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 1D09–1393.,1D09–1393. |
| Decision Date | 02 March 2011 |
54 So.3d 642
Aisha VAN DYKE, Appellant,
v.
MATRIX EMPLOYEE LEASING and FWCIGA/First Commercial Insurance Company or FCIC c/o USIS, Appellees.
No. 1D09–1393.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
March 2, 2011.
[54 So.3d 643]
C. James McCall of McCall & Erler, P.A., Jacksonville, and David A. McCranie of David A. McCranie, P.A., Orange Park, for Appellant.Kristin J. Longberry of Alvarez, Sambol & Winthrop, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees.PER CURIAM.
In this workers' compensation appeal, Claimant challenges an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) which denies her claims for temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits and for the authorization of medical care. Because the order on appeal fails to demonstrate that the JCC, who did not have the benefit of our recent decision in Wyeth/Pharma Field Sales v. Toscano, 40 So.3d 795, 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), utilized the appropriate legal standards in evaluating Claimant's entitlement to TPD benefits from November 2, 2004, through February 28, 2005, we reverse and remand the JCC's denial of TPD benefits for this period (along with the claims for penalties, interest, costs, and attorney's fees pertaining to this issue) for additional proceedings. See id.; see also Alie v. Crum Staffing, Inc., 41 So.3d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Matthews v. Nat'l Pump Compressor, 41 So.3d 982 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). We affirm the JCC's denial of the remainder of compensation benefits at issue, because competent substantial evidence supports the JCC's finding that Claimant no longer had work restrictions as of March 1, 2005. See § 440.15(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008) (stating TPD payable where medical conditions create restrictions on employee's ability to return to work). Further, we affirm the JCC's denial of the claim for authorization of a doctor, because competent substantial evidence supports the JCC's findings that Claimant failed to establish the medical necessity of this care. See Laxner v. Target Corp., 41 So.3d 396, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND the JCC's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trice v. Trice, Case No. 2D17-3673
...they must be subject to dissolution when the circumstances that justified such an injunction are no longer operative. See Alkhoury, 54 So.3d at 642 (evaluating motion to dissolve domestic violence injunction with reference to principles applicable to ordinary injunctions and noting that "pe......
-
Hobbs v. Hobbs, No. 1D19-1269
...Instead, Ms. Hobbs' fear of harm from Mr. Hobbs had to be objectively reasonable, based on all the circumstances. See Alkhoury , 54 So. 3d at 642. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hobbs' fear was objectively reasonable. The trial court erred in finding otherwise.And this case is distingui......
-
Labrake v. Labrake, 1D21-456
...the injunction no longer exists so that the continuation of the injunction would serve no valid purpose.'" Id. (quoting Alkhoury, 54 So.3d at 642). A trial court considers, when determining whether the injunction continues to serve a valid purpose, whether the victim "reasonably maintain[s]......
-
Helweg v. Bugby ex rel. S.J.H., 1D19-4093
...fear of becoming a victim of domestic violence.’ " Hobbs v. Hobbs , 290 So. 3d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (quoting Alkhoury , 54 So. 3d at 642 ).It is true that the two injunctions for S.J.H. and L.E.H. against Mr. Helweg remain 306 So.3d 1248 valid and indefinitely prevent him from hav......