Hicks v. Putnam County School Bd., AY-80
| Decision Date | 27 February 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. AY-80,AY-80 |
| Citation | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 501,464 So.2d 232 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 501 Joann HICKS, Appellant, v. PUTNAM COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD and Home Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Tim Keyser, Interlachen, for appellant.
Victor M. Halbach, Jr. of Marks, Gray, Conroy & Gibbs, Jacksonville, for appellees.
Hicks appeals from a workers' compensation order contending the deputy erred in finding that she was not entitled to TTD benefits, PTD benefits or wage loss benefits and that her cardiac condition was not causally connected to her industrial accident. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
The issue of MMI was raised by the pretrial stipulation and was raised at the hearing. The resolution of this issue is vital to the determination of Hicks' claim for TTD benefits. The treating physician set MMI in a letter to the E/C but later stated that Hicks had not reached MMI. The deputy made no finding of MMI.
We must reverse on this issue and remand to the deputy for the purpose of determining MMI and for a statement of her findings of fact supporting her determination of MMI.
A deputy must adjudicate all issues which are presented and ripe for disposition. Estech General Chemical Corp. v. Graham, 424 So.2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Because the evidence in this case is conflicting on the date of MMI, it is necessary that the deputy set forth her findings of fact so that we might determine how she reached her conclusion and if supported by CSE. Kennedy v. Tyson, 382 So.2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Brown v. Griffin, 229 So.2d 225 (Fla.1969).
Hicks concedes that there is no proof in the record of a causal relationship between the accident and her heart condition. We, therefore, affirm on this issue.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. Leon County School Bd.
...of temporary total disability benefits attributable to the efforts of claimant's attorney. See, generally, Hicks v. Putnam County School Board, 464 So.2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Ellerbee v. Concorde Roofing Co., 461 So.2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA We reach a similar result with regard to the secon......
-
Department of Transportation/State of Fla. v. Brown, 91-979
...omitted certain findings, lacked sufficient findings, or contained contradictory statements. See, e.g., Hicks v. Putnam County School Board, 464 So.2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Courtesy Corporation v. Holland, 538 So.2d 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Reversal has been required where orders failed ......
-
Courtesy Corp. v. Holland, s. 87-1912
...containing inconsistent findings required reversal and remand for entry of order with consistent findings); Hicks v. Putnam County School Bd., 464 So.2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (reversal and remand necessary when deputy failed to set forth findings of fact enabling appellate court to determ......
-
Hicks v. Putnam County School Bd., BO-90
...of determining MMI," finding that the deputy commissioner had erred in failing to determine that issue. Hicks v. Putnam County School Board, 464 So.2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). At the hearing on remand, appellant attempted to raise the issue of a psychological component to her original injur......