Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Donahue v. CTL Distribution

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 19, 1996No. 95-2314Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partErvin, Judge

Although I concur in most of the majority’s decision, I write to express my disagreement with that portion affirming the application of deemed earnings for the period from September 30, 1994, through October 31, 1994. I would reverse the application of deemed earnings for that one-month period, because the employer and its insurance carrier (collectively, the E/C) failed to satisfy their burden in regard to the application of the deemed earnings provision.

The evidence was undisputed that Donahue could not return to his former employment as a truck driver because of his compensable injuries.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Tampa Elec. Co. v. BradshawDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1985
  2. Bado v. Canteen Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987
  3. Bright v. City of TampaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1989
  4. Hyatt Regency Westshore v. RobinsonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
  5. Delchamps v. PageDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1995

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API