SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROSELLA PITTMAN, APPELLEE
MINER, Judge.
Finding that the order of the Judge of Compensation Claims awarding benefits based upon his finding that claimant’s injury was causally related to an industrial accident was supported by competent substantial evidence and further that the JCC did not err in applying the logical cause doctrine on the record before us, we affirm the order appéaled from.
BARFIELD, J., concurs.
NIMMONS, J., dissents with opinion.
NIMMONS, Judge,
dissenting,
I would reverse the J.C.C.’s award of compensation. I would hold that the claimant failed to establish a causal connection between the alleged incident at work and her subsequent back problems. I am of the view that the claimant was not entitled to the benefit of the logical cause doctrine because the purported logical, cause was not sufficiently proven by the lay and expert testimony so as to shift to the E/C the burden of demonstrating a more logical cause. Wilhelm v. Westminster Presbyterian Church, 235 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1970); City of Ft. Lauderdale v. Lindie, 496 So. 2d 168, 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pitcher v. David J. Zappitell, Zappitell & Kapral, P.A., 160 So. 3d 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…ecognizing that a violation of a rule of professional conduct does not constitute negligence per se; rather, it may be evidence of negligence. Causation and the other elements of a negligence action must still be established. See Pressley v. Farley, 579 So. 2d 160, 161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Nonetheless, the trial court erred for three reasons. First, the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment appears to have been based on the element of causation which the trial court believed to be unprovable. “ ‘I…
-
Allen R. and Jill F. Greenwald v. Eisinger, Brown, Lewis & Frankel, P.A., 118 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…e negligence per se, ... but it may be used as some evidence of negligence.” Oberon Invs., N.V. v. Angel, Cohen & Rogovin, 492 So. 2d 1113, 1114 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), rev’d on other grounds, 512 So. 2d 192 (Fla.1987). See also Pressley v. Farley, 579 So. 2d 160, 161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (holding violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct does not create a legal duty on the part of the lawyer nor constitute negligence per se, although it may be used as some evidence of negligence).6 Nevertheless, Plaint…
-
CK Prive Grp. 1800, LLC v. Diaz, Reus & Targ, LLP (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…Before SCALES, HENDON and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM. 2 Affirmed. See Dadic v. Schneider, 722 So. 2d 921, 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (recognizing that “[n]o authority supports a cause of action” for charging an excessive legal fee); Pressley v. Farley, 579 So. 2d 160, 161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (stating that a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct governing a lawyer’s responsibilities neither creates a legal duty on the part of the lawyer nor gives rise to a cause of action); Salit v. Ruden McC…
Authorities Cited
- Wilhelm v. Westminster Presbyterian Church, 235 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1970)
- City OF FT. Lauderdale v. Lindie, 496 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)