DIANE BRANNIGAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STEVE BARNETT PONTIAC AND ADJUSTCO, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Diane Brannigan appealed a workers' compensation judge's denial of her claim for temporary disability benefits, compensability of her back condition, and authorization of a certain doctor. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding that competent substantial evidence supported the judge's determination that Brannigan had not developed a back condition as a result of her injury at the time of the decision.
The court affirmed the judge's denial of compensability of the back condition, finding both that the question of compensability was clearly an issue before the judge and that competent substantial evidence supported the judge's determination that appellant had not developed a back condition from her injury at that time.
[1] Competent substantial evidence supports a judge of compensation claims' determinations regarding the compensability of a claimant's condition.
[2] A judge of compensation claims may deny a claim for compensability of a condition without prejudice, allowing for a new claim should the condition develop.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Competent substantial evidence supports the judge of compensation claims' determinations in this case.”
Establishes the standard of review and the court's conclusion that the lower court's findings were supported by adequate evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Diane Brannigan suffered an injury and sought workers' compensation benefits including temporary disability benefits and compensation for a …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Claim For Temporary Disability Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellant appeals the judge of compensation claims’ denial of her claim for temporary disability benefits, compensability of her back condition and authorization of a certain doctor. We affirm.
Competent substantial evidence supports the judge of compensation claims’ determinations in this case. The only issue raised by appellant that merits discussion concerns paragraph two of the decretal portion of the appealed order which declares: “The claim for compensability of the back condition is denied and dismissed without prejudice.” The judge relied upon the testimony of two doctors in determining that, despite the testimony of appellant’s chiropractor to the contrary, appellant has not developed a back condition as a result of her injury “at this time.” The judge further stated: “Should back problems develop, a new claim may be filed.”
Appellant based her attack on that portion of the order strictly upon her assertion that the question of compensability of her back condition was not an issue and upon the argument that competent substantial evidence does not support the judge’s determination.1 However, we find that the question of compensability of her back condition was clearly an issue and that competent substantial evidence supports the judge’s determination.
ERVIN and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur. . Appellant has not raised the specific issue of the application of Section 440.28, Florida Statutes, to the judge's handling of this matter by denying compensability of appellant’s back condition "at this time" and "without prejudice" to the assertion of compensability of the back condition at a later date. Therefore, we do not address that issue.