green
Positive treatment
4.6 score
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Watson v. Delta Airlines, Inc.
Justice Drew with characteristic clarity in Jones v. Ludman Corp., 190 So.2d 760, 761 (Fla. 1966), points up "the clear distinction made in this instance [§ 440.19(1)(a)] and throughout the act between medical benefits and disability compensation" and then highlights the exception in explicating that § 440.19(1)(a) "is limited, however, [2] ... to the situation where payments are made without an award [as the statute reads], in which case further claims may be made within two years after payment of compensation or remedial treatment." Justice Drew again applied the statutory exception in mea…
discussed
Cited "see"
University of Florida v. McLarthy
See Jones v. Ludman Corp., 190 So.2d 760, 761 (Fla. 1966) (section 440.19(1)(a) "is limited ... to the situation where payments are made without an award, in which case further payments may be made within two years after payment of compensation or remedial treatment").
discussed
Cited "see"
Budget Luxury Inns, Inc. v. Boston
See Brown v. Giffen Industries, Inc., 281 So.2d 897 (Fla. 1973). *1000 Finally, the claimant contends that her claim should be considered a new claim for additional benefits pursuant to Section 440.19(1)(a). [3] Yet, Section 440.19(1)(a) is also inapplicable since it authorizes a claim under circumstances where payments are initially made without an award "in which case further claims may be made within two years after payment of compensation or remedial treatment." Jones v. Ludman Corp., 190 So.2d 760 , 761 (Fla. 1956).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Foster v. EG & G Florida, Inc.
See, e.g., Jones v. Ludman Corp., 190 So.2d 760, 761-62 (Fla.1966) (noting that it could not ignore the explicit provision in section 440.28 by which a determination becomes final unless “modified upon petition filed within the specified time after the last payment of compensation”); Horton v. M & M Luncheonteria, Inc., 123 So.2d 332, 332 (Fla.1960) (“It is true that § 440.28 ... authorizes modification of compensation orders under § 440.28 ... provided application therefore is made within two years of the date of such order and other provisions of the statute are complied with.”); W…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frances KROLL, as of the Estate of I. Jack Kroll
v.
STEINFELDT-THOMPSON CO., Inc., a Florida corporation, W. Gordon Schmitt and Harold Melsel
v.
STEINFELDT-THOMPSON CO., Inc., a Florida corporation, W. Gordon Schmitt and Harold Melsel
No. 34501.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Sep 28, 1966.
190 So. 2d 760
Maurice Fixel, Holfywood, for petitioner., Fleming, O’Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for respondents.
Caldwell, Drew, Ervin, Thomas, Thornal.
Published
PER CURIAM.
The decision of the District Court of Appeal, 176 So.2d 520, is affirmed on authority of our opinion in Tanenbaum v. Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital, 190 So.2d 777.
The writ of certiorari is discharged.
THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, DREW and CALDWELL, JJ., concur. ERVIN, J., dissents.