G.E. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE AND SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
BOBBIE LYNN COX, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
The court affirmed the award of psychiatric treatment and temporary benefits, finding competent substantial evidence supported the decision.
Claimant was awarded psychiatric treatment and temporary benefits. The employer/carrier challenged the award, and the claimant cross-appealed on sever…
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 Maximum Medical Improvement cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, C.J.
G.E. Financial Assurance and Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. challenge an award of psychiatric treatment and temporary benefits to the claimant, Bobbie Lynn Cox. We find there was competent substantial evidence to support such awards and affirm without further comment. On cross-appeal, claimant raises three issues. We affirm as to all, but we briefly address one of the issues: whether the employer/carrier was estopped from denying permanent impairment. Because the issue of estoppel was not addressed by the JCC, we decline to address that issue for the first time on appeal.1 Claimant may raise that issue in the future if the question of entitlement to permanent benefits is litigated.2
BROWNING and HAWKES, JJ., concur. . The JCC acknowledged the estoppel argument, but she failed to address it; specifically, the JCC indicated that the issue of permanency had been withdrawn from her consideration by the claimant.
. We would note that the JCC found that there is no medical evidence that claimant attained maximum medical improvement as a result of the psychiatric condition, and as such, she found the claimant has not reached overall maximum medical improvement.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bailey v. State, 996 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…ppellant, Scott Bradley Bailey, appeals from his judgment and sentence. We affirm. We note, however, that Appellant has raised an issue on appeal over which we do not have jurisdiction. See Wild v. Dozier, 672 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1996); Sanders v. State, 881 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). As such, this opinion is not dispositive as to that issue. AFFIRMED. WEBSTER, DAVIS, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.…