THOMAS J. MCRAY, PETITIONER,
v.
B. A. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, BITUMINOUS CASUALTY CORPORATION AND THE FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS
Certiorari denied.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON, J., concur.
PEARSON, J., dissents.
(dissenting).
We are called upon to consider the petition of a claimant to review an order of the Industrial Commission affirming the action of the deputy commissioner in finding : “ * * * that the claimant * * * has a residual or permanent partial disability of 35% of the body as a whole.” Upon this finding the deputy commissioner ordered the payment of “compensation benefits for permanent partial disability, for 122.5 weeks for 35 percent permanent partial disability of the body as a whole.”
I am impelled to the conclusion that the finding of the deputy commissioner falls exactly into that class of finding which was set aside in Ball v. Mann, Fla.1954, 75 So.2d 758. Therefore I would grant the writ and direct the return of the cause to the deputy commissioner for a proper finding upon the compensation due for diminution of earning capacity.
PEARSON, Judge
(dissenting).
We are called upon to consider the petition of a claimant to review an order of the Industrial Commission affirming the action of the deputy commissioner in finding : “ * * * that the claimant * * * has a residual or permanent partial disability of 35% of the body as a whole.” Upon this finding the deputy commissioner ordered the payment of “compensation benefits for permanent partial disability, for 122.5 weeks for 35 percent permanent partial disability of the body as a whole.”
I am impelled to the conclusion that the finding of the deputy commissioner falls exactly into that class of finding which was set aside in Ball v. Mann, Fla.1954, 75 So. 2d 758. Therefore I would grant the writ and direct the return of the cause to the deputy commissioner for a proper finding upon the compensation due for diminution of earning capacity.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Emerson Crews v. Town OF BAY Harbor Islands & Metro. Dade Cnty. Self Ins. Fund, 378 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…trict court the “power of direct review of administrative action” within that district.2 Notwithstanding- that view, for reasons aforesaid, we affirm. WENTWORTH and SHAW, JJ., concur. BOOTH, J., dissents. . Cf., Maryland Casualty Co. v. Marshall, 106 So. 2d 212, (Fla. 1st DCA 1958); § 440.25(3)(b), Fla.Stat.; § 440.45(3)(i), Fla.Stat. . Section 46, Chapter 79 — 40, Laws of Florida, would appear also to require consideration (in cases involving review of action in other districts) of the impact of Secs. 10…
-
Univ. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Coral Gables v. Lightbourn, 201 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)…procedure is specifically authorized by F.A.R. 2.1(a) (5) (d) when the jurisdiction of an appellate court has been improvidently invoked. Such transfers have been made by the courts of our state. Maryland Casualty Company v. Marshall, Fla.App.1958, 106 So. 2d 212; National Dairy Products Corporation v. Odham, Fla. 1958, 100 So. 2d 394; Codomo v. Shaw, Fla. 1958, 99 So. 2d 849. All circumstances considered the defendant’s petition for certiorari shall be transferred by separate order to the District Court of…
-
Poncier v. State, 284 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…ot in the trial judge. A statute should be given a reasonable interpretation in harmony with the intent of the legislature. See State ex rel. Hughes v. Wentworth, 135 Fla. 565, 185 So. 357 (1938); Maryland Casualty Company v. Marshall, Fla.App.1958, 106 So. 2d 212. The die is cast when the suit is filed. Either the court has the right under the statute to accept it or it does not. We therefore conclude that the trial judge mistakenly denied the defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss and the cause is remanded…
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
- Ball v. Mann, 75 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1954)