EVELYN MADDOX, APPELLANT,
v.
RINALDI'S EXPRESSWAY LANES AND CASUALTY RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE, 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 order is reversed and the cause is remanded for a de novo hearing because the deputy commissioner's delay in entering the order prejudiced the claimant's case.
The claimant testified at two hearings, and the deputy commissioner entered an order five months after the final hearing. The entire case hinged on th…
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 De Novo Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The order in this workers’ compensation case is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a de novo hearing under the authority of Rappoport v. American Hospital, 406 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
The claimant testified at a hearing on May 12,1983; another hearing was held on September 26, 1983. The deputy commis sioner’s order was entered on February 20, 1984, five months after the final hearing and almost nine months after claimant testified. The entire case was determined based on claimant’s credibility. Thus, the deputy had to choose whether to believe claimant’s testimony, knowing it was discredited to some extent by the information claimant gave to the hospital staff on admission to the hospital, a difficult decision at best and not one, on the record before us, that could fairly be undertaken many months after the testimony was heard.
The vague, ambiguous, and contradictory order makes it clear that the facts of the case as well as how the claimant presented herself as a witness were not fresh on the deputy’s mind when the order was entered. The order is stale and must, in the interest of justice, be vacated and the case remanded for a new hearing.1
BOOTH, SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . Rappoport v. American Hospital, 406 So. 2d 1244, 1245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981):
The credibility of a witness is largely dependent üpon her demeanor. It would be difficult for anyone to recall live testimony after seven months and in all probability the decision below was based upon the transcript. In our opinion the interests of justice require a new hearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harrington v. Vida Appliance Corp. & Gulf Ins. Co., 542 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…all issues. Scottie-Craft Corporation v. Smith, 336 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1976); Miller v. Oolite Industries, Inc., 336 So. 2d 1152 (Fla.1976); Dade County School Board v. Albert, 438 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Maddox v. Rinaldi’s Expressway Lanes, 459 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). ERVIN, BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Palmieri v. Naaco & Am. Policyholders Ins. Co., 677 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ppliance Corp., 542 So. 2d 1006, 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (order reversed and remanded for de novo hearing where JCC entered order 245 days after hearing and testimony of live witnesses was critical to outcome); Maddox v. Rinaldi’s Expressway Lanes, 459 So. 2d 421, 421-22 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (new hearing required “in the interest of justice” where deputy entered order five months after final hearing and nine months after claimant testified and entire case was determined based on claimant’s credibility). More…
-
Autheria Mitchell v. Metro Dade & Risk Mgmt. for Dade Co., 797 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…well v. Bellsouth Telecomms., 732 So. 2d 333, 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Palmieri v. NAACO, 677 So. 2d 1310, 1311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Harrington v. Vida Appliance Corp., 542 So. 2d 1006, 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Maddox v. Rinaldi’s Expressway Lanes, 459 So. 2d 421, 422 & n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Rappoport v. American Hosp., 406 So. 2d 1244, 1245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). See also Frazier v. Bay County, 781 So. 2d 464, 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Hatcher v. St. Joe Paper Co., 608 So. 2d 65, 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Ca…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cornelia Rappoport v. Am. Hosp. & Risk Corp. of Fla., 406 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)