EARL L. CRAMER, PETITIONER,
v.
BROEDELL PLUMBING SUPPLY, ET AL., RESPONDENTS

Fla. | 1996-06-13
No. 86709
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
675 So. 2d 118 Florida Supreme Court (1996) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
SHAW, Justice.

SHAW, Justice.

We have for review Cramer v. Brodell Plumbing Co., 661 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), wherein the district court certified:

Whether section [440.15(3)(b)4.d.], Florida Statutes (1991), is subject to and comports with the requirements of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act?

We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We have already answered in the affirmative. See Barry v. Burdines, 675 So. 2d 587 (Fla.1996). We approve Cramer. It is so ordered.

KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Cramer v. State, 117 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 1997)
    …2 (Fla. 1st Dist.Ct.App.1995). We also know that the supreme court answered the question in the negative, holding that the Florida law’s use of impairment ratings to determine benefits does not violate the ADA. Cramer v. Broedell Plumbing Supply, 675 So. 2d 118 (Fla.1996) (citing Barry v. Burdines, 675 So. 2d 587 (Fla.1996)). The Division’s rejection of Cramer’s claim was therefore affirmed. Cramer did not petition the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari. Accordingly, Cramer’s i…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw