STANLEY READ v. CTL DISTRIBUTORS and CRAWFORD & COMPANY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STAT E OF FLORIDA STANLEY READ, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellant, v. CASE NO. 1D03-3675 CTL DISTRIBUTORS CRAWFORD & COMPANY, and Appellees. _____________________________/ Opinion filed October 29, 2004. An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Mark H. Hofstad, Judge. E. Taylor Davidson and Merette Oweis of DiCesare, Davidson & Barker, P.A., Lakeland, for Appellant. Ricki L. Whipple and Rusten C. Hurd of Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees. PER CURIAM. Claimant, Stanley Read, challenges two rulings of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC), alleging error in (1) the JCC s finding that claimant was not permanently and totally disabled (PTD) until November 20, 2002, because he had not achieved overall maximum medical improvement (MMI) from both his physical and psychiatric injuries until that date, and (2) the JCC s denial of the claim for impairment benefits. As to the former issue, we affirm, and agree that competent, substantial evidence supports the JCC s finding of MMI. As to the second issue, we reverse and remand. In this regard, we note the E/C concedes that if the court affirms the JCC s finding that claimant attained PTD status as of November 20, 2002, the cause should be remanded with directions to determine the appropriate amount of permanent impairment benefits. Consequently, we direct the JCC to determine an appropriate award of impairment benefits for the period from April 1, 2001, the date TTD benefits terminated by operation of statute. Because the E/C paid claimant TTD benefits for a period of time from the date of the accident, April 1, 1999, until January 14, 2002, it shall be allowed a credit for TTD benefits it paid claimant subsequent to April 1, 2001. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. ERVIN, ALLEN and HAWKES, JJ., CONCUR. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
