Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Transmed, Inc. v. Botts

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 4, 2004No. 1D03-1463Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partErvin, J.

I would affirm the order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC) in its entirety. It is unclear on what basis the majority has reversed the award of temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits for nearly three weeks following claimant’s termination from employment. If the majority considers that reversal is required because claimant’s termination occurred as a result of a reason unconnected with his work-related injury, the rule is firmly established that such fact alone does not disen-title an employee from disability benefits. See Betancourt v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 693 So.2d 680, 683-84…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Regency Inn v. JohnsonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
  2. Betancourt v. Sears Roebuck & Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997
  3. Vencor Hosp. v. AhlesDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1998
  4. Jefferson v. Wayne Dalton Corp./HartfordDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2001
  5. Stewart v. CRS Rinker Materials Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2003

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API