MITCHELL DASH
v.
DON CARTER LANES AND ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 1998-03-24
No. 97-2661
BOOTH and BENTON, JJ., concur.
708 So. 2d 982 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1998)

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.


Holding

The court held that res judicata barred claims for organic food and water due to a prior settlement agreement, but did not bar the claim for authorization of Dr. Rea.


Facts & Procedural History

The claimant sought sanctions, organic food/water, and authorization of Dr. Rea. The JCC denied all claims. The claimant had previously agreed to be r…

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.

Topics

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Res Judicata cases and more on FLexlaw


Opinion of the Court
ERVIN, Judge.

ERVIN, Judge.

Appellant, Mitchell Dash, appeals a final order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC), denying his claims for sanctions, for provision of organic food and bottled water, and for authorization of Dr. William J. Rea. We affirm the denial of sanctions without comment. We also affirm the denial of organic food and water, but reverse the denial of authorization of Dr. Rea, because the former is barred by res judicata, while the latter is not.

We affirm the JCC’s conclusion that claimant’s request for organic food and bottled water were barred by res judicata, because Dash showed no change in circumstances that would justify modifying the washout settlement agreement wherein Dash had agreed that he would be responsible for these items. Res judicata did not bar the request for authorization of Dr. Rea, however. In the earlier proceeding, the JCC held that Dash had abandoned his request for authorization of Dr. Rea, because claimant’s treating physician, Dr. Seinfeld, wanted to perform additional tests before deciding whether to refer Dash to Dr. Rea. Accordingly, such request was not ripe, thus it was not barred from consideration in the instant proceeding. Green Thumb Corp. v. Britten, 393 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (res judicata bars consideration of an adjudicated claim, but not one that was withdrawn). Although claimant’s medical condition has not changed, the • circumstances have, in that Dr. Seinfeld performed four of the five authorized tests and now recommends that Dash be evaluated by Dr. Rea.

We reverse on this point and remand with directions to the JCC to determine whether to grant Dash’s claim for authorization of evaluation and treatment by Dr. Rea.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED for further consistent proceedings.

BOOTH and BENTON, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw