KEITH E. MOBLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
FULFORD VAN & STORAGE AND MONARCH 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.
In this worker's compensation appeal, the court affirmed the deputy commissioner's ruling allowing surveillance films as impeachment evidence but reversed and remanded because the deputy commissioner's order lacked sufficient findings of fact to support the denial of benefits.
The court affirmed the deputy commissioner's admission of the surveillance films because impeachment exhibits need not be disclosed at pretrial conference under the rules, and the claimant had adequate notice of the witnesses. However, the court reversed because the order lacked essential findings of fact regarding the accident, injuries, treatment, and disabilities for which benefits were sought.
[1] Impeachment and rebuttal exhibits and witnesses need not be revealed at a pretrial conference in worker's compensation proceedings.
[2] A deputy commissioner's refusal to order disclosure or production of impeachment or rebuttal evidence will not be reversed absent a showing of abuse of discretion.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“impeachment and rebuttal exhibits and witnesses need not be revealed at the pretrial conference”
Establishes the rule allowing surveillance films to be presented without prior disclosure
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMobley, a worker's compensation claimant, sought benefits for injuries sustained in an accident. The employer/carrier presented surveillance films as …
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 Worker'S Compensation Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this worker’s compensation appeal we affirm the deputy commissioner's ruling „denying appellant’s objection to surveillance films offered into evidence by the employer/carrier. Rules 10(a)(4) and (5), Florida Worker's Compensation Rules of Procedure (temporary) provide that impeachment and rebuttal exhibits and witnesses need not be revealed at the pretrial conference. Further, the deputy commissioner’s refusal to order disclosure or production will not be reversed absent a showing of abuse of discretion. Melton v. Bowen Roofing Company, IRC Order 2-3376 (March 15, 1978).
Appellee points out that the surveillance witnesses were known to the claimant’s counsel more than a month prior to the final hearing, but no effort was made to elicit information from them by means of depositions. We reverse the order of the deputy commissioner for failure to set forth findings upon which he based denial of the benefits sought by the claimant. Vargas v. Americana of Bal Harbour, 345 So. 2d 1052 (Fla.1976); Pierce v. Piper Aircraft Corporation, 279 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1973); and Westberry v. Copeland Sausage Company et al., 389 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), Case No. SS-356, Opinion filed October 27, 1980.
Here the order contains little more than could be gleaned from a cursory glance at the index to the record on appeal.
We agree with appellees’ assertion that it is not necessary for the deputy commissioner to make a belabored finding of fact on each and every potential question which may have arisen in the course of the claim and compensation hearing. The order here for review, however, contains no findings whatever with respect to the nature of the accident, the injuries sustained, the treatment provided in the past or presently being provided, and no indication whatever concerning the past or present complaints or disabilities for which the claimant is seeking benefits. We strongly disagree with appel-lees’ assertion that it is the function of this court, when faced with an order of this kind, to “search the record on appeal for any support of the compensation order, and if such is found, the Order must be affirmed.” See Armour & Company v. Chatman, IRC Order 2-3212 (August 4, 1977).
We further observe, parenthetically, that it is the function of the order to provide at least an outline of the essential facts pointing toward the decision ultimately reached by the deputy commissioner;1 and it is the function of appellate counsel to refer the court, by appropriate references to the specific pages of the testimony or other documents in the record, to the evidence which either supports or fails to support the essential facts upon which the decision is based.
REVERSED AND REMANDED for the entry of an order as directed by this opinion.
ERVIN, LARRY G. SMITH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur. . Rule 8(b), Florida Workers’ Compensation Rules of Procedure, as amended by order of the Supreme Court of Florida, October 23, 1980:
(b) The order of the Deputy shall set forth findings of fact, conclusions of law and the Deputy’s determination of the claim or other ruling. The order shall be signed by the Deputy and shall include a certificate of mailing thereon, (emphasis supplied)
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Trujillo v. S. Wine & Spirits, 525 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…f specificity necessary to enable the court to determine how the deputy commissioner arrived at his conclusion. It is not the court’s function, however, to search the record for any support of an order and affirm it. Mobley v. Fulford Van & Storage, 390 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). See also University of Florida v. Green, 395 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Evans v. Orlando Work Force, 449 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). In commenting upon the issue of claimant’s work search, the deputy commissioner state…
-
Vero Beach Care Ctr. & Associated Indus. of Fla. v. Ricks, 476 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…nt for claimant’s complaints of low back pain. First, the deputy’s order is facially deficient in failing to include a factual finding of causation between claimant’s medical complaints and her industrial accident, Mobley v. Fulford Van and Storage, 390 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), since such a causal connection is necessary to trigger an E/C’s obligation to pay for medical treatment. G.F.G. Janitorial Service v. Gonzalez, 406 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Secondly, and more importantly, we also agree w…
-
Gideon Hinds v. Orlando Concrete Contractors & Reliance Ins. Co., 454 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…ain the evidence supporting the conclusions in an order, we shall not and have not hesitated to disapprove an order. Evans v. Orlando Work Force, 449 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), Opinion filed May 15, 1984, citing Mobley v. Fulford Van & Storage, 390 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), and Rule 8(b), Florida Workers’ Compensation Rules of Procedure. The record in this case indicates that from January 13, 1983 until July 1983, appellant kept no written record of the employment contacts he made. Further although…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pierce v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 279 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1973)
- Vargas v. Americana OF BAL Harbour, 345 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 1976)
- Westberry v. Copeland Sausage Co., 389 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)