THOMAS CHARLTON AND BERNICE CHARLTON, PETITIONERS,
v.
DAN BROSNAHAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PRESIDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AND FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS
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 Florida District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of certiorari to overturn an order denying death benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act, not on the merits but because the deputy commissioner failed to properly set forth findings of fact as required by law. The court remanded for the deputy commissioner to issue a proper order containing explicit factual findings before final review could proceed.
The order was improper and remanded because the deputy commissioner failed to fulfill the requirement of setting forth distinct findings of fact. The court held that a deputy commissioner must explicitly state in numbered paragraphs the specific facts found from the testimony before announcing a decision.
“one of the functions of the deputy commissioner is to make findings of fact. In carrying out this function it is necessary for the deputy commissioner to set forth distinctly the facts upon which he bases his ultimate decision”
Establishes the fundamental legal requirement that deputy commissioners must explicitly state findings of fact
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners Thomas and Bernice Charlton sought death benefits following the death of their son under the Florida Workmen's Compensation Act. A deputy …
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 Workmen'S Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioners, who were claimants before the deputy commissioner, bring to this court a petition for writ of certiorari directing our attention to the affirmance by the Full Commission of the Florida Industrial Commission of an order of one of its deputy commissioners. The deputy commissioner’s compensation order denied death benefits to the petitioners for the death of their son upon the ground that the petitioners were not in fact dependents within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. See § 440.16(2) (e), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
We are not called upon to review the decision of the deputy commissioner. And it may well be, that upon reconsideration of this cause in the light of this opinion, there will be no' change in the decision. Our attention is directed to the fact that the deputy commissioner’s order is not in proper form. It has often been pointed out by the Supreme Court of Florida that one of the functions of the deputy commissioner is to make findings of fact. In carrying out this function it is necessary for the deputy commissioner to set forth distinctly the facts upon which he bases his ultimate decision. Ball v. Mann, Fla. 1954, 75 So.2d 758; Hardy v. City of Tarpon Springs, Fla.1955, 81 So.2d 503; Straehla v. Bendix-We-Launder-Rite, Fla. 1955, 81 So.2d 657; Chiles v. E. M. Scott Construction Co., Fla.1956, 91 So.2d 173; Andrews v. Strecker Body Builders, Fla. 1957, 92 So.2d 521; Fischer v. John W. Thomson & Son, Fla.1957, 92 So.2d 526.
The order to which our attention is directed does not set forth the findings of fact upon which the decision of the deputy commissioner is based. It is apparent from a reading of the order that the deputy commissioner has attempted to take a short cut in this matter by setting out in separate paragraphs a brief review or summary of the testimony of each witness and then at the end of the recitals of the testimony making his conclusion. This practice has been disapproved by the Supreme Court of Florida. Ball v. Mann, supra, and Hardy v. City of Tarpon Springs, supra. The function of review by the full commission and that of this court in examining the record upon petition for writ of certiorari will be expedited by the practice of setting forth in numbered paragraphs the specific facts which the deputy commissioner finds from the testimony.
After these facts have been set forth briefly, the deputy commissioner is then *626in a position to announce his decision, and the reviewing authority is enabled to determine the legal sufficiency of the decision in light of specific findings made.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and this cause is returned to the full commission for the entry of an order remanding the cause to the deputy commissioner for the making of proper findings of fact and his decision thereon.
It is so ordered.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Westberry v. Copeland Sausage Co., 389 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…in explaining the posture of the case and the conclusions reached by the deputy, such a recitation cannot be substituted for specific findings of ultimate facts. Ball v. Mann, 75 So. 2d 758 (Fla.1954); Charlton v. Dan Brosnaham Construction Company, 108 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1959). REVERSED and REMANDED for entry of an order containing specific findings on the compensable injury issue, and findings and conclusions on the question of notice of injury. ERVIN and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.…
-
Josey v. Hooper Constr. Co., 115 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…ance of an order of the Deputy Commissioner so lacking in adequate findings as to prevent a reviewing authority testing the validity of the award. Section 440.25(3) (c), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Charlton v. Dan Brosnahan Construction Company, Fla.App.1959, 108 So. 2d 624; Fischer v. John W. Thomson & Son, Inc., Fla.1957, 92 So. 2d 526. The writ of certiorari is granted with directions to the Florida Industrial Commission to remand the cause to the Deputy Commissioner for the entry of a compensation order including…
-
Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Minna Martha Jaeger, 119 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1960)…ese findings and order of the Deputy Commissioner discloses that all essential conflicts were resolved in substantial compliance with the rule approved in Ball v. Mann, Fla.1954, 75 So. 2d 758, and Charlton v. Dan Brosnahan Const. Co., Fla.App.1959, 108 So. 2d 624. There are eleven separate findings associated with six facts detailed to support. They might have been stated in better form but certainly it is shown that the Deputy Commissioner knew what he was doing and gave very careful consideration to his or…
Authorities Cited
- Ball v. Mann, 75 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1954)
- Hampton Hardy v. City OF Tarpon Springs, 81 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1955)
- Andrews v. Strecker Body Builders, Inc., 92 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1957)
- Straehla v. Bendix-We-Launder-Rite, 81 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1955)
- Fischer v. John W. Thomson & SON, Inc., 92 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1957)
- Chiles v. E. M. Scott Constr. Co., 91 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1956)