MARY HARRISON, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA STATE HOSPITAL AND THE DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT, APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 1994-01-25
No. 92-3844
ERVIN and SMITH, JJ., concur.
631 So. 2d 318 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1994) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Worker'S Compensation Claim Causation Worker'S Compensation Competent Substantial Evidence

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Worker'S Compensation Claim cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
ALLEN, Judge.

ALLEN, Judge.

The claimant appeals a workers’ compensation order in which the judge found that the claimant failed to establish an industrial cause of injury. In making this finding the judge indicated that Dr. Bontrager deferred to Dr. Martin as to causation, and that Martin deferred to Dr. Kohler, who could not causally relate the injury to the employment. However, Bontrager’s deposition reveals that he deferred to Martin only with regard to the claimant’s treatment, and that he did not fully defer as to the question of causation. Although the judge need not always completely describe the reasons for accepting or rejecting testimony, the ultimate findings should delineate the basis of the ruling and must be supported by competent substantial evidence. See, e.g., Carson v. Gaineswood Condominiums, 532 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Because the explanation as to the basis of the ruling in the present ease is not entirely supported by the record evidence, we reverse and remand for additional clarification or further consideration.

ERVIN and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Town OF Jupiter & McCreary Corp. v. Andreff, 656 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
    …de a finding, based on competent substantial evidence, that an actual emergency exists and state sufficient facts to support this finding. See Wal Mart Stores, Inc. v. Brewer, 648 So. 2d 264, 265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Harrison v. Florida State Hosp., 631 So. 2d 318, 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Perez v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., 496 So. 2d 967, 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); University of Fla. v. Green, 395 So. 2d 258, 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). [*1378] Appellants also assert that, m this case, the application of section 44…
  • Devandal Thomas v. State, 789 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
    …ct had been decided upon during the first deliberation, and that the lack of a mark under section A. had simply been an oversight. Each juror gave that assurance. Based upon Esskuchen v. State, 756 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) and Davis v. State, 631 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1994), we find that there was no contamination of the jury verdict in this case. The trial court did not err in resubmitting the issue to the jury, which clearly indicated the existence of a clerical error in filling out the verdict fo…
  • Harper v. State, 66 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
    …ecall a jury after being discharged to clear inconsistency, ambiguity, defect, or clerical error, provided that thei’e has not been opportunity for jury [*1093] contamination. See Thomas v. State, 789 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Davis v. State, 631 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Here, as the jury had not yet been discharged, there was no opportunity for jury contamination. In addition, the jury’s inadvertent failure to fill in part the verdict form constituted clerical error. Thus, the court did not abus…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw