Legal Opinion

Costanzo v. Pik n' Run 4

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 21, 1995No. 94-1145PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DAVIS, Judge.

The claimant, Daniel Costanzo, appeals a final order denying his claim for temporary total, temporary partial or wage loss benefits from April 14, 1993 through May 13, 1993. He asserts that he was prejudiced by the Judge of Compensation Claims’ (JCC) errors in admitting, and relying upon the substance of, the testimony of a witness for the employer/carrier (e/c) who was not listed on any witness list as required by the pretrial stipulation, as well as a previously undisclosed document introduced during the testimony of that witness. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Binger v. King Pest ControlSupreme Court of Florida · 1981
  2. Rose v. Madden & McClure Grove ServiceDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1993
  3. Greene v. Maharaja of India, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990
  4. Ogden Allied Services v. PanessoDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1993

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Skf Management v. Unemployment AppealsDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1995
  2. Boynton Landscape v. DickinsonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API