Legal Opinion

Rio Miami Corp. v. Balbuena

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 3, 2000No. 3D98-3296PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

The trial court erred in granting the plaintiff/appellee’s motion to reinstate maintenance and cure because contradicting medical evidence existed which indicated the plaintiffiappellee had not reached maximum medical improvement. See Langmead v. Admiral Cruises, Inc., 610 So.2d 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Quarrel v. Minervini, 510 So.2d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA *2591987), review denied, 519 So.2d 987 (Fla.1988).

Accordingly, the order below is reversed and the case is remanded with instructions to send the issue to the jury: See Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So.2d 101 (Fla.1968); Quarrel v. Minervini, 510…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hendricks v. DaileySupreme Court of Florida · 1968
  2. Quarrel v. MinerviniDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987
  3. Langmead v. Admiral Cruises, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. RigbyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012
  2. GOD'S BLESSING LTD. v. KATHY SALASDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2022
  3. Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. HowardCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2014
  4. Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., Helix Subsea Construction, Inc., and Helix Well Ops Inc. v. Matthew Howard, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2014
  5. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. RigbyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API