TRUMAN S. STEPHENS, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHERN FURNITURE TRANSPORTS, INC. AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
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 workers' compensation case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a deputy commissioner's order compelling discovery of the claimant's 1980 income tax return because the order was issued without a prior hearing or notice to the claimant, violating procedural requirements.
The deputy commissioner must comply with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure when compelling production of documents under Section 440.33(1), Florida Statutes. An order to compel discovery cannot be signed without providing the opposing party notice and an opportunity to present objections to the discovery request.
[1] A deputy commissioner in a workers' compensation case must comply with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure when compelling discovery.
[2] A party seeking to compel discovery must file a motion to compel and provide notice to the opposing party.
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“We hold that in exercising this authority, the deputy commissioner must comply with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Establishes the core holding that procedural rules apply to deputy commissioner discovery orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 1, 1982, the employer/carrier filed a motion to produce and application for a hearing requesting discovery of Stephens' 1980 income tax retur…
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 Compelling Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Stephens, claimant in this workers’ compensation case, files this petition for writ of certiorari, alleging that the deputy commissioner erred when, without a prior hearing, he signed an order compelling discovery of Stephens’ 1980 income tax return. The petition is granted. We set aside the order of the deputy commissioner and remand for compliance with Rules 1.350 and 1.380, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
On 1 March 1982, the employer/carrier filed with the deputy commissioner a motion to produce and an application for a hearing on that motion. The motion to produce requested discovery of Stephens’ 1980 income tax return within thirty days. A copy of the motion was sent to Stephens. However, before the thirty-day period had expired, the employer/carrier sent to the deputy commissioner a proposed order compelling discovery of the tax return. This order the deputy commissioner signed with no hearing and with no notice to Stephens.
Pursuant to Section 440.33(1), Florida Statutes (1981), the deputy commissioner has the authority to “compel ... the production of books, papers, documents, and other evidence . ... ” We hold that in exercising this authority, the deputy commissioner must comply with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
In an ordinary civil case, discovery is usually conducted by the parties without need for court intervention. Thus, Rule 1.350, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, allows the discovering party to request the production of documents from the other party. Under that rule, the party to whom the request is directed has thirty days to respond. Any response must state either that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested, or it must state the reasons for objection to inspection, if any. If one party refuses or objects to discovery, then the discovering party may move to compel discovery pursuant to Rule 1.380, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
In this case, Stephens was never given an opportunity to present any objections to the employer/carrier’s motion to produce. The deputy commissioner signed the order before the thirty-day period had expired and he did so without any notice to Stephens. On remand, Stephens should be allowed to show why discovery of his 1980 tax return should not be permitted.
Reversed and remanded.
ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Fla. Bar re Workers' Comp. Rules of Procedure, 460 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1984)…ideration for the expeditious resolution of an injured worker’s rights. Although discovery is generally intended to be self-administrating, it is subject to the supervision of the Deputy Commissioner. Stephens v. Southern Furniture Transports, Inc., 420 So. 2d 904 (Fla.1st DCA 1982). This rule does not modify and is consistent with the powers and authority conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner pursuant to section 440.33, Florida Statutes. RULE 4.100 PRETRIAL PROCEDURE (a) GENERALLY. The Deputy may, on his…
-
Amendments to Florida Rules of Workers' Compensation Procedure, 603 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1992)…eration for the expeditious resolution of an injured worker’s rights. Although discovery is generally intended to be self-administrating, it is subject to the supervision of the ©deputy ©commissioner. Stephens v. Southern Furniture Transports, Inc., 420 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). This rule does not modify and is consistent with the powers and authority conferred upon the ©deputy ©commissioner pursuant to section 440.33, Florida Statutes. 1988 Amendment!. Subsectiondivision (g) of this rule is intended t…
-
Winn Dixie & Crawford & Co. v. Teneyck, 656 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…ny part of it, or failure to permit inspection as requested.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.350(b). By not filing a motion to compel, Ms. Teneyck failed to follow the procedures outlined in the rules. See generally Stephens v. Southern Furniture Transports, Inc., 420 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Raulerson v. Finney, 280 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The servicing agent’s objection, even if picayune,2 did not justify what amounted to the striking of appellants’ defense, particularly in view of the fact that the servicin…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence