DAVID SPENCER, D/B/A SPENCER COMPANY AND SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
WALLACE R. BEASLEY, JR., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the order regarding appellants' issues but reversed the finding that the appellee was capable of returning to work by a specific date.
Appellants and appellee raised issues from an order of the judge of industrial claims. The appellee was released for light work later than the date de…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Worker'S Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants raise three issues and appel-lee/cross-appellant raises two issues from an order of the judge of industrial claims. After a careful examination of the briefs and the record in this case, we find the appellants have failed to demonstrate reversible error, and, accordingly, we affirm the order. As to the cross-appeal, we find there is competent, substantial evidence to support the denial of nursing services to the appel-lee. However, we conclude the judge did err in finding the appellee was capable of returning to some work by October 1, 1978.
There is no evidence in the record to support the view that the appellee was able to return to work on October 1, 1978. It was not until November 17, 1978, that appellee was released by his treating physician for light work. Moreover, he attempted to return to work on November 20, 1978, without success. Consequently, there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the finding that the claimant was capable of returning to work on October 1, 1978.
Therefore, the order is affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ERVIN, SHIVERS and SHAW, JJ., concur.