Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg/City of St. Petersburg Risk Management

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 23, 2013No. 1D12-3563Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partThomas, J.

I concur in the result only, as Mr. West-phal established through unrefuted expert testimony that he was totally disabled at the expiration of temporary disability benefits and would remain totally disabled after he reached maximum medical improvement (MMI). Thus he was entitled to permanent total disability (PTD) benefits as a matter of law, under our rule announced fifteen years ago in City of Pensacola Firefighters v. Oswald, 710 So.2d 95, 98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), and reaffirmed in Matrix Employee Leasing, Inc. v. Hadley, 78 So.3d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Furthermore, in addition to our…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission v. GarciaTexas Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Holly v. AuldSupreme Court of Florida · 1984
  3. A. R. Douglass, Inc. v. McRainey, as Admrx.Supreme Court of Florida · 1931
  4. Wheeler v. MeggsSupreme Court of Florida · 1918
  5. State v. EganSupreme Court of Florida · 1973

30 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