Legal Opinion

Colonial Oaks Apartment v. Hood

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 19, 1996No. 95-1710PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

SHIVERS, Senior Judge.

Colonial Oaks Apartments, the employer, and Continental Loss Adjusting Services, the servicing agent (together, the E/SA) appeal a workers’ compensation order wherein the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) found that a penetrating keratoplasty or corneal graft constituted a “prosthetic device” for the purposes of section 440.19(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1990). Upon our determination that a corneal graft, as living tissue, does not meet the definition of prosthetic device established by this court1 and adopted by the supreme court,2 we reverse.

*447On July 20,1990 George Hood…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Roe v. CITY INVESTING/GENERAL DEV. CORP.Supreme Court of Florida · 1991
  2. Cash v. Universal Rivet, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 1993
  3. Universal Rivet, Inc. v. CashDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Vitti v. MilfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API