L. B. WILLIAMS, PETITIONER,
v.
W. E. DUGGAN AND REBECCA DUGGAN, 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 Supreme Court held that filing a claim in a workers' compensation case does not constitute an irrevocable election of remedies merely by filing, even if the claim is later dismissed without adjudication on the merits. The Court reversed the district court's contrary holding, finding it in direct conflict with established precedent regarding election of remedies.
The filing of a claim in a workers' compensation case, together with preliminary procedural steps leading to dismissal without disposition of the issues on the merits, does not constitute an election between alternative remedies. An election is matured only when the rights of the parties have been materially affected to the advantage of one or the disadvantage of the other.
“election is matured when the rights of the parties have been materially affected to the advantage of one or the disadvantage of the other”
Establishes the test for when an election of remedies becomes conclusive; not merely upon filing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams filed a claim in a workers' compensation case. The claim was subsequently dismissed without adjudication of its merits. The district court be…
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 Liberal Construction Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
We have little difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the decision of the-*727district court here under review,1 as explained in its opinion containing full statement of the facts, is in direct conflict in the constitutional sense with both Williams v. Robineau2 and McCormick v. Bodiker.3 For example in the Robineau case4 this ■Court specifically held that, when one is required to elect between remedies generally, an “election is matured when the rights ■of the parties have been materially affected to the advantage of one or the disadvantage ■of the other,” and “It is generally conceded that to be conclusive it must be efficacious to some extent.” (Emphasis supplied.) Moreover, in that case we further observed that the liberal rule “is the better one and is approved by this Court.” The cases cited in support of the statement last quoted hold that the filing of an action does not constitute an election even when the adverse party has been required to answer. This definition of election, 5 though based upon equitable principles, is equally applicable to legal remedies. So far as conflict is concerned, our jurisdiction under the Constitution expressly contemplates collision on a point of law rather than restriction to all fours conflict. We are of the opinion, therefore, that these two decisions are wholly irreconcilable and that this Court has jurisdiction to resolve such conflict.
On the merits, it is our view that the holding in the instant case that the filing of a claim in a workmen’s compensation case amounts to an irrevocable election, even when terminated without adjudication of its merits, is clearly erroneous under the Robineau decision. To say that a word means one thing in one context and something quite different in another, without explanation or statutory prescription, results in a conflict in the most elementary sense.
The filing of an action or the filing of a claim together with the procedural steps preliminary to the dismissal as in this case, without any disposition of the issues on the merits, does not in our judgment amount to an election between alternative remedies where they exist. We conclude that the approval of this rule would in the future result in hardships and miscarriages of justice. A contrary disposition can work no real hardship upon the carrier of employer.
The decision in the district court is accordingly quashed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
ROBERTS, C. J., TERRELL and CALDWELL, JJ., and COLLINS, Circuit Judge, concur.
O’CONNELL, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
THOMAS, J., dissents.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the majority decision as to the merits, but dissent on the question of jurisdiction.
O’CONNELL, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the majority decision as to the merits, but dissent on the question of jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Chorak v. Naughton, 409 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…orida Feed Mills, Inc., 268 So. 2d 363 (Fla.1972) appeal dismissed, 411 U.S. 944, 93 S.Ct. 1923, 36 L.Ed.2d 406 (1973). The mere filing of a compensation claim does not preclude an injured party from pursuing common law remedies. Williams v. Duggan, 153 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1963). However, a plaintiff who asserts that his injury was the result of an accident and recovers benefits under the Act cannot later claim that his injury was not the result of an accident within the Act’s contemplation. Matthews v. G.S.P. Co…
-
Pearson v. Harris, 449 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…was an employee of Ace Tower, Pearson made an election of remedies that Western may assert as a bar to Pearson’s present civil action in which he now alleges that he was not an employee, but an independent contractor. Although in Williams v. Duggan, 153 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1963), the court determined that no election had been made where the plaintiff first filed a workers’ compensation claim, then withdrew it and filed a common law action, language in the opinion indicates a different result where, as here, the w…1 / 2
-
Velez v. Oxford Dev. Co., 457 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…court granted summary judgment for the employer without determining that issue, finding that plaintiff knowingly accepted workers’ compensation benefits. To these facts the election of remedies doctrine is totally inapplicable. Williams v. Duggan, 153 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1963), relied on by the employer, is inappo-site. In Williams, the employee at all times conceded that the injury occurred in the course of employment. Further, the [*1390] holding in that case was that where the employee first filed a workers’…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. Robineau, 124 Fla. 422 (Fla. 1936)
- McCormick v. Bodeker, 119 Fla. 20 (Fla. 1935)
- Speight v. Reliable Music Co., Inc., 140 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)