Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Stainless Equipment Co. v. McCaslin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 22, 1984No. AV-464Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMills, Judge

I agree with the majority except that I would reverse that part of the deputy commissioner’s order requiring the E/C to pay *77the hospital bill of $5,132, and I would award appellee’s attorney a fee of $750 rather than $2,000 for services rendered in this appeal.

The record reflects that the E/C has paid $2,098 of the hospital bill. It should receive credit for this payment. Also, it appears that the balance of the bill probably includes charges for treatment of problems such as diabetes, ulcer, bronchitis and alcoholism which are unrelated to the industrial injury. I would reverse and remand…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Sam L. Rudd Leasing U. S. A. v. BeckDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981

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

Powered by the Exa API