Michael Carson appeals a workers’ compensation order denying his claim for permanent disability benefits. He sustained a back injury on July 17, 1977, during the course and scope of his employment with Gaineswood Condominiums. The facts are set forth in Carson v. Gaineswood Condominiums and State Farm Insurance Company, 532 So.2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), wherein we remanded for additional findings of fact concerning claimant’s impairment and disability. On remand, the judge issued the order now before us.

The record, as well as this court’s prior opinion, indicates that claimant has suffered from certain psychiatric difficulties, including depression, aggravated by the industrial injury. In his order, the judge stated:

15. The undersigned has also relied upon the medical testimony that the claimant has been given a one hundred percent service connected disability because of psychiatric condition. (R 50, 399, 654, 659).

(R 980). We note, however, that the order contains no findings~“wittr regard to the aggravation of claimant’s psychiatric condition by the compensable physical injury, and the resulting disability, if any, due to such aggravation. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further findings on this issue. Because the order does not effectively dispose of all issues bearing on the extent of claimant’s disability, we do not consider the sufficiency of the remaining findings of fact related to claimant’s physical injury at this time.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

dissenting.

I would affirm the appealed order. In Carson I,1 this court reversed and remanded “with directions to articulate specific and detailed reasons for his rejection of the unrefuted medical testimony, and to explain how claimant’s testimony regarding his physical capabilities was inconsistent with the activities depicted in the videotapes.”

The pertinent findings contained in the judge’s original order was somewhat brief, consisting of less than one page. On remand, the judge entered the order appealed herein clarifying his earlier order and exhaustively articulating in 7V2 pages the reasons for rejecting the medical testimony and explaining in detail how claimant’s testimony regarding his physical capabilities was inconsistent with the activities depicted in the videotapes.

I believe that the judge of compensation claims has adequately complied with this court’s directions in Carson I, that his above quoted findings in the second order sufficiently answer the concerns articu*148lated by the majority in Carson I, and that there is competent substantial evidence to support the judge’s order.

■ I would therefore affirm.