Legal Opinion

Kubber v. Max Davis Associates & FEISCO

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 17, 1992No. 91-3130PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ERVIN, Judge.

Appellant, James J. Rubber, seeks review of a workers’ compensation order that limited his award for hydrotherapy to membership at a health spa and denied his claim for reimbursement for the cost of a hot tub appellant had installed at his home. Appellant contends that appellees, Max Davis Associates and FEISCO, the employer and its insurance carrier (E/C), should have been required to provide him with a jacuzzi hot tub at his home and to reimburse him for the balance of the purchase price for the first hot tub.1 We agree with appellant on both points and, therefore, reverse and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Strickland v. Neil's PaintingDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1989
  2. United Sheet Metal Co. v. MeyerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1988

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Kraft Dairy Group v. CohenDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
  2. Howie v. Pennington CountySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Howie v. Pennington CountySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API