JESSIE L. FUDGE, APPELLANT,
v.
GLODIX CONSTRUCTION CO. AND SHELBY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 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 did not err in ordering the appellant to appear for a deposition, finding the excuses for non-appearance to be dilatory tactics.
[1] A judge of industrial claims has the authority to order a party to appear for a deposition.
[2] Failure to appear for multiple deposition attempts and a hearing, without proper notification, may be considered dilatory tactics.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees sought to compel the deposition of appellant after nine failed attempts over 14 months, with appellant's counsel citing legislative duties. …
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 Dilatory Tactics cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The sole issue on this appeal is whether the judge of industrial claims erred in ordering appellant to appear for a deposition. The hearing below, on appellees’ motion to compel discovery, was precipitated by appellees’ inability to obtain appellant’s deposition after nine attempts over the course of 14 months. The excuse given for appellant’s failure to appear for his deposition was his counsel’s inability to attend because of a busy legislative schedule in Tallahassee. In fact, appellant and his counsel did not appear at the hearing below. Counsel for appellant argues that he was unable to attend, once more, because he was in Tallahassee at a legislative meeting. This is unsupported by the record.
The record reveals the judge received a phone call, five minutes before the scheduled hearing, notifying him that appellant’s counsel was unable to attend. There was no mention of any legislative meeting. Even if there had been such mention, it would not affect the disposition of this appeal. As shown by the appendix to appellant’s brief, counsel for appellant knew, for at least two weeks prior to the hearing, that he was scheduled to be in Tallahassee.
However, he failed to notify the judge until five minutes before the hearing was to commence.
It is clear to us that the failure to appear at the previous depositions and at the hearing below amounts to dilatory tactics on the part of appellant’s counsel. To delay the resolution of this and other causes by such questionable appeals should not and will not be tolerated. We regret that it has become necessary to concern ourselves with improper practices and tactics on the part of the parties and counsel engaging in worker’s compensation litigation.1 This is especially disconcerting to the court at a time when its capacity to process necessary and well-founded appeals is being strained to the utmost.
Accordingly, we affirm the judge’s order. McCORD, LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur. . Special Disability Trust Fund v. University of Miami, 379 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), 1980.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Sykes, 557 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…. 2d 513 (Fla.1963); Blackwood v. Penwoven, 140 So. 2d 108 (Fla.1962); Campbell v. Wendy’s of South Florida, 495 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986;) Publix Supermarkets v. Kostrubanic, 421 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Fudge v. Glodix Construction Co., 383 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); see also City of San Antonio v. Spears, 751 S.W. 2d 551 (Tex.Ct.App.1988); see also American Heritage Dictionary (2d College Ed.1985); Websters Third New International Dictionary (unabridged 1981); Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed…
Authorities Cited
- Special Disability Tr. Fund & Mary Mans v. Univ. OF Miami & Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 379 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)