ALICE JONES BING, APPELLANT,
v.
OCALA CLEAT COMPANY; CORPORATE GROUP SERVICES, INC., APPELLEES
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.
The court held that the judge of industrial claims erred in finding the claimant mentally competent, as this finding was contrary to the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence.
A claimant sought workers' compensation benefits, and the judge of industrial claims found the claimant mentally competent based solely on personal ob…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Claim For Workers' Compensation Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The issue before the judge of industrial claims was whether the claimant was mentally incompetent so as to necessitate the appointment of a guardian and to defeat a statute of limitations’ bar to her claim for workers’ compensation benefits. Based solely on his observations of the claimant, and contrary to all recorded evidence, the judge of industrial claims found that the claimant was mentally competent. We reverse.
The test for mental incompetency sufficient to defeat applicability of § 440.-19(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1973), can be found in Thomas v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., 160 Fla. 687, 36 So. 2d 377 (1948).
Was the claimant so unsound in mind that he could not manage his ordinary affairs of life?
The judge of industrial claims’ finding in this regard must be based on competent substantial evidence. U. S. Casualty Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 55 So. 2d 741 (Fla.1951). In the instant case, as in Thomas, supra :
Allegations of the claimant as to his mental incompetence are overwhelmingly substantiated by a preponderance of evidence. The evidence introduced by claimant has not been contradicted. The finding of the Deputy Commissioner was erroneous and clearly against the preponderance of evidence.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new order consistent with this opinion and for determination of matters ripe for adjudication by virtue of this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., BOOTH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Diamond R. Fertilizer & Seibels Bruce Grp. v. Davis, 567 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…for determining whether a claimant is incompetent is whether he is so unsound of mind that he could not manage his ordinary affairs. Thomas v. Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co., 160 Fla. 687, 36 So. 2d 377 (1948); Bing v. Ocala Cleat Co., 383 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Contrary to the E/C’s contention, the fact that claimant was allowed to testify at the hearing and was not appointed a guardian does not imply competency of the claimant. There is no authority to deny an incompetent individual…
Authorities Cited
- US Cas. Co. v. Md. Cas. Co., 55 So.2d 741 (Fla. 1951)
- Thomas v. Westinghouse Elec. & MFG. Co., 160 Fla. 687 (Fla. 1948)
- Venardos v. Vocelle, 160 Fla. 731 (Fla. 1948)