HARDEE LIVESTOCK MARKET, INC. AND FLORIDA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
JOE L. DAVIS GROVES, INC. AND SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE CO., APPELLEES, AND HERMAN MANLEY, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 a workers' compensation appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the deputy commissioner's order, rejecting the claimant's cross-appeal challenge to the average weekly wage calculation and catastrophic benefits determination on the grounds that the wage discrepancy was de minimus and the deputy's decision was supported by competent evidence.
The court declined to reverse the deputy commissioner's order. The wage computation error was deemed de minimus and not requiring reversal, and the catastrophic benefits denial was affirmed because a permissible view of the evidence sustained the deputy's decision.
[1] An appellate court may decline to address an asserted error that would result in a de minimis increase in compensation.
[2] An appellate court will affirm an order when a permissible view of the evidence sustains the lower tribunal's decision.
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“De minimus non curat lex.”
The court's Latin maxim stating that the law does not concern itself with trifles, applied to reject the $1.28 per week wage computation error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA claimant (Herman Manley) appealed a deputy commissioner's workers' compensation order. The claimant's cross-appeal challenged the computation of ave…
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 Self-Executing Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Chief Judge.
We did not overlook claimant’s cross-appeal when affirming, without opinion, the deputy commissioner’s order. Instead we declined to take notice of an as serted error in computing the average weekly wage which if shown would increase claimant’s compensation rate by $1.28 per week. De minimus non curat lex. Eureka Corp. v. Guardian Trust Co., 104 Fla. 117, 139 So. 198 (1932). And we refused to reverse the deputy’s view on the catastrophic benefits claim, section 440.15(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1980 Supp.), because a permissible view of the evidence sustains the deputy’s order. Our view of the matter was not changed by partial or qualified confessions of error in the brief of appel-lees, parties other than the other putative employer/carrier who urged to the deputy the points of which claimant complains on cross-appeal.
Chapter 440 is yet self-executing independently of this Court’s role and function. The parties might before now have stipulated to dismiss the cross-appeal, upon settling issues previously disputed upon the record. Even now, nothing prevents the carrier from paying what it considers in good faith is claimant’s due. But as for us, we will not make light of the deputy’s function, nor treat his order as a trivial thing, by reversing that order, without a clear showing of error, on mere agreement of the parties. Under chapter 440 the parties have their function, which is to self-enforce the Act insofar as they conscientiously can do so, even during an appeal, Holiday Care Center v. Scriven, 418 So. 2d 322, 327-28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); and this Court has another function, which is to correct plain and substantial errors of law, of which there were none here, and to affirm orders not so flawed. No reversible error having been shown, we adhere to our decision previously announced, Fla.App., 422 So. 2d 844, and claimant’s motion for rehearing is
DENIED.
SHIVERS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Holiday Care Ctr. v. Scriven, 418 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- The Eureka Corp. v. The Guardian Tr. Co., 104 Fla. 117 (Fla. 1932)