Legal Opinion
Crum v. Richmond
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided October 25, 2010No. 1D10-0221PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Per curiam
The Employer/Carrier raises three issues in this workers’ compensation appeal, challenging awards of medical care based on a finding that Claimant’s lumbar condition is compensable, temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits, and permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. The issues raised with respect to the award of TPD benefits and the finding of compensability are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the award of TPD benefits, the finding of compensability of the lumbar condition, and the award of medical benefits without further comment.
We write only to address the award of PTD…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- City of Pensacola Firefighters v. OswaldDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1998
- Rivendell of Ft. Walton v. PetwayDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2002
- Emanuel v. David Piercy PlumbingDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000
- Olmo v. Rehabcare Starmed/SRSDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2006
3Cited by12 opinions
- & SC13-1976 Bradley Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg, etc. and City of St. Petersburg, etc. v. Bradley WestphalSupreme Court of Florida · 2016
- Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg/City of St. Petersburg Risk ManagementDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2013
- Matrix Employee Leasing, Inc. v. HadleyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2011
- East v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2010
- Flowers v. Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc.Court of Appeals of Mississippi · 2013
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.