Edgewood Boys' Ranch Foundation v. Robinson, AW-459
| Decision Date | 13 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. AW-459,AW-459 |
| Citation | 451 So.2d 532 |
| Parties | EDGEWOOD BOYS' RANCH FOUNDATION and New Hampshire Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Kevin ROBINSON, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Valerie A. Marshall of Haas, Boehm, Brown, Rigdon & Seacrest, P.A., Orlando, for appellants.
Bill McCabe of Shepherd, McCabe & Cooley, Orlando, for appellee.
We have carefully considered the fifteen page transcript of the hearing at which the deputy commissioner ordered the employer/carrier to furnish a specially-equipped van for the use of claimant, a quadriplegic since his 1975 compensable accident. We affirm the order.
The transcript reveals that the E/C did not oppose the award of the new van, the necessity for which was fully substantiated by claimant's doctor's deposition introduced at the hearing and read by the deputy commissioner. We note particularly the deputy commissioner's statement of the issues, his tentative ruling, and the response of the E/C's attorney, as follows THE COMMISSIONER: [B]ased upon the testimony of Mr. Robinson and having read the deposition of Dr. Menter, ... I am looking at two issues. One is the authorization of a van and the next one is, how much. I am going to authorize the van and I hope I haven't made the judgment prematurely, if you have some evidence to support your position, Maggie, or some testimony.
MS. SOJOURNER: No. The only question we have regarding the van was whether or not there was any insurance on the prior van and what utilization was made of those monies ....
Essentially, two basic concerns were expressed by the E/C's counsel at the hearing. The first involved what disposition was made of insurance proceeds, if any, that might have come into the claimant's hands as the result of the wrecking of the first van furnished to him by the E/C in 1976. This concern was answered by claimant's attorney's observation that since the wreck occurred seven years earlier, any funds received had been dissipated in supplying claimant with transportation during that time. Secondly, the E/C's attorney interposed a hearsay objection to claimant's attempted introduction into evidence of a written estimate the claimant had obtained from MidContinent Conversion Co., of Kansas City, Missouri (the claimant moved to Merriam, Kansas, after the accident), which contained a list of specifications for a particular model van, and an itemization of costs for the van, its accessories and equipment. The deputy commissioner's ruling and his comment thereafter indicates that he considered the hearsay objection well taken. However, he further stated that introduction into evidence did not appear to be necessary. Apparently, the deputy commissioner concluded that there was no genuine issue as to the suitability of or cost of the van described in the estimate, and the specifications for the van contained in the order appear to have been copied, verbatim, from the cost estimate.
After the deputy commissioner announced at the hearing that the E/C would be ordered to furnish a new van, the E/C's attorney continued her general opposition to the use of cost estimate, and argued that the E/C should not be ordered to obtain a van from any particular dealer. The claimant's attorney offered no objection to the E/C's obtaining a suitable van at less expense, if it could do so. However, no evidence was submitted by the E/C, and we find that no significant attempt was made through cross-examination of the claimant to determine from the list of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R & T Const. Co. v. Judge
...judge's finding that "the van was a reasonably required 'other apparatus' " under the statute. Id. See also Edgewood Boys' Ranch Foundation v. Robinson, 451 So.2d 532 (Fla.App.1984), aff'd, 456 So.2d 1270 (Fla.App.1984), in which the Court affirmed a workers' compensation order requiring th......
-
Weakland v. Toledo Engineering Co., Inc.
...180, 741 P.2d 313 (Ariz.App., 1987); Aino's Custom Slip Covers v. DeLucia, 533 So.2d 862 (Fla.App., 1988); Edgewood Boys' Ranch Foundation v. Robinson, 451 So.2d 532 (Fla.App., 1984); Manpower Temporary Services v. Sioson, 529 N.W.2d 259 (Iowa, 1995); Mississippi Transportation Comm. v. Dew......
-
R & T Const. Co. v. Judge
...130 (S.D.1984). But see Terry Grantham Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 154 Ariz. 180, 741 P.2d 313 (Ariz.App.1987); Edgewood Boy's Ranch Found. v. Robinson, 451 So.2d 532 (Fla.App.1984). JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. CASE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF ......
-
Mississippi Transp. Com'n v. Dewease, 93-CC-00521-SCT
...is a showing of medical necessity. Aino's Custom Slip Covers v. DeLucia, 533 So.2d 862 (Fla.App.1988); Edgewood Boys' Ranch Foundation v. Robinson, 451 So.2d 532 (Fla.App.1984). In Arizona, the courts have taken a particularly liberal approach, allowing as an "other apparatus" a van equippe......