MARIE HORTON, PETITIONER,
v.
M & M LUNCHEONTERIA, INC.; MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY AND THE FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS

Fla. | 1960-09-30
THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, HOB-SON, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
123 So. 2d 332 Florida Supreme Court (1960) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that the deputy commissioner did not err in denying the petition for modification of a compensation order.


Facts & Procedural History

Petitioner sought modification of a prior compensation order, alleging a change in condition or mistake in fact. The deputy commissioner denied the pe…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by certiorari from a judgment of the Florida Industrial Commission approving an order of deputy commissioner denying a petition filed with him under .§ 440.28, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. alleging that there had been a change in condition or a mistake in fact made as to petitioner in a compensation order dated January 20, 1959.

It is true that § 440.28, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., authorizes modification of compensation orders under § 440.28, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provided application therefor is made within two years of the date of such order and other provisions of the statute are complied with. The evidence must show, however, that there has been a change in condition or mistake in determination of fact. Modification will not be granted where the evidence taken at the hearing on the petition for modification is merely cumulative or fails to show conclusively a change in condition or mistake in determination of fact. Hall v. Seaboard Maritime Corp., Fla.App. 1958, 104 So.2d 384.

We have examined the evidence taken in this case and we find ample competent evidence to support the deputy commissioner’s finding. We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the deputy commissioner in his refusal to appoint a physi*333cian to make examination of the claimant as to cause of “blackouts” she is alleged to have been suffering recently. There was substantial evidence that the “blackouts” had no relation to claimant’s prior injury. She was represented by competent counsel who was advised of the hearing and could have had any relevant testimony before the deputy commissioner that he desired.

The writ of certiorari is accordingly denied.

THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, HOB-SON, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Lorie Foster v. EG & G Fla., Inc., 879 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
    …ng that it could not ignore the explicit provision in section 440.28 by which a determination becomes final unless “modified upon petition filed within the specified time after the last payment of compensation”); Horton v. M & M Luncheonteria, Inc., 123 So. 2d 332, 332 (Fla.1960) (“It is true that § 440.28 ... authorizes modification of compensation orders under § 440.28 ... provided application therefore is made within two years of the date of such order and other provisions of the statute are complied with.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw