Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
MOWREY ELEVATOR COMPANY and Claims Center, Inc., Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Edward L. PRICE, III, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
We affirm that portion of the compensation order which is the subject of the employer/carrier's appeal, as it is supported by competent, substantial evidence. We reverse that part of the order denying cross-appellant's claim for temporary disability from July 6, 1993, through May 9, 1994, because the record does not support the denial.
Based on the testimony of claimant's attending physician, the judge of compensation claims inconsistently awarded claimant temporary total disability (TTD) benefits from May 9, 1994-the date Dr. McCoy performed an independent medical examination (IME) on claimant and found him to be temporarily and totally disabled-through September 26, 1995, the date of the hearing. Dr. McCoy considered claimant to be on a continuing TTD status when he saw him, and there is no evidence that claimant's condition had deteriorated between the time he had left his job and when he was examined by Dr. McCoy. Instead, there was only evidence that Price's chronic obstructive pulmonary disease had improved since he left the work environment. It is illogical to deny TTD benefits for the period before the IME and grant them for the period afterwards, when the only evidence was that his condition had improved.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
I would affirm the order under review in its entirety, in light of evidence that Mr. Price worked part of the time between July 6, 1993, and May 9, 1994, and in the absence of medical evidence of his condition during that period.
PER CURIAM.
ERVIN and KAHN, JJ., concur. BENTON, J., concurs and dissents with written opinion.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 96-1015.
Decided: February 14, 1997
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida,First District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)