Geiger Distributors, Inc. v. Snow, 34071.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | JAMES LAWRENCE KING, Circuit |
| Citation | 186 So.2d 507 |
| Parties | GEIGER DISTRIBUTORS, INC., and Iowa Homo Mutual Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. John SNOW and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. |
| Docket Number | No. 34071.,34071. |
| Decision Date | 11 May 1966 |
186 So.2d 507
GEIGER DISTRIBUTORS, INC., and Iowa Homo Mutual Insurance Company, Petitioners,
v.
John SNOW and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.
No. 34071.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 11, 1966.
Howard N. Pelzner, Miami, for petitioners.
Williams & Jabara, Miami, J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, and Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, for respondents.
JAMES LAWRENCE KING, Circuit Judge.
The Petitioners, Geiger Distributors, Inc. and Iowa Home Mutual Insurance Company, seek review by certiorari of an order of the Florida Industrial Commission, reversing the Deputy Commissioner's holding that the condition suffered by the Respondent, John Snow, pre-existed the accident of December 2, 1959, and was therefore not compensable.
The Respondent, by cross petition for certiorari, asserts error in the order of the Full Commission affirming the Deputy Commissioner's ruling that the treating physician was not entitled to payment for
The Respondent suffered a compensable accident on December 2, 1959, when a pressurized charge of freon gas escaped from an air conditioning system he was over-hauling and struck his hands full force, freezing them to a pipe for two minutes before he was able to extricate himself. He immediately reported the accident to his employer, Geiger Distributors, Inc. and was driven by one of the corporate officers to the office of Doctor Richard Mayer for treatment of his injuries.
The doctor submitted his first report on December 15, 1959, and his final medical report on February 6, 1960, for which he was paid in full.
On June 29, 1960, the Respondent, Snow returned to Doctor Mayer for further treatment to his hands. On this occasion the doctor submitted two reports, one on July 27, 1960, and a final report on October 20, 1960, for which he was again paid in full for his services. Mr. Snow requested and received authorization from his corporate employer for the resumption of medical treatment for his injuries.
The Respondent next returned to Doctor Mayer on March 2, 1961, and the doctor, on March 22, 1961, filed his report on the appropriate Industrial Commission form. On this last occasion the doctor continued treating the Respondent without further reporting until his interim billing October 18, 1962. Although the bill for services was received by the Petitioner carrier on October 22, 1962, it was not filed with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stacy v. Venice Isles Mobile Home Park, 92-2328
...W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence Sec. 704.2 at 526 (1993 ed.). As the Florida Supreme Court recognized in Geiger Distributors, Inc. v. Snow, 186 So.2d 507, 509 (Fla.1966), a medical expert's opinion testimony must be "solidly rooted in a firm foundation of fact." In any event, when the same me......
-
Watson v. Freeman Decorating Co., AW-350
...197 So. 117, 118 (1940); Consolidated Growers Association v. Kruse, 159 Fla. 405, 31 So.2d 545 (1947); Geiger Distributors, Inc. v. Snow, 186 So.2d 507, 509 (Fla.1966). Those opinions suggest that when a claimant presents evidence revealing the employer's inconsistent conduct, the employer ......
-
Fuchs Baking Co. v. Estate of Szlosek, AY-231
...stand for the proposition that a medical expert's opinion must be based upon evidence in the record, Geiger Distributors, Inc. v. Snow, 186 So.2d 507 (Fla.1966), not upon facts or inferences not supported by evidence, Victoria Hospital v. Perez, 395 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) or not ind......
-
Collins v. Catalytic, Inc., 90-2682
...in a firm foundation of fact to support the opinion of the expert upon whom the Deputy chooses to rely." Geiger Distribs., Inc. v. Snow, 186 So.2d 507, 509 (Fla.1966) (emphasis added). Moreover, when, as here, the JCC's findings on permanency vel non depend entirely on medical evidence cont......