WILLIAM S. HARRIS, PETITIONER,
v.
FOSTER PRESTRESS, INC., FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, AND THE FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS
WILLIAM S. HARRIS, PETITIONER,
FOSTER PRESTRESS, INC., FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, AND THE FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS
155 So. 2d 865
Florida Supreme Court (1963)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
The writ of certiorari is denied on the authority of Kress & Co. v. Burkes, 153 Fla. 868, 16 So.2d 106; Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Hudson, Fla.App., 112 So.2d 29; Martin Company v. Carpenter, Fla., 132 So.2d 400; Thomas v. Carter Fruit and Produce Company, Fla., 137 So. 2d 573.
It is so ordered.
TERRELL, THOMAS, THORNAL, O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.
ROBERTS, C. J., and DREW, J., dissent.
(dissenting).
I agree with the dissenting commissioner.
Dissent
DREW, Justice
(dissenting).
I agree with the dissenting commissioner.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gen. Elec. Co. & Elec. Mut. Liab. v. Spann, 479 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…e employer to pay for future medical treatment. Even had it not, the provisions of Section 400.13 F.S.A. would have required the employer to furnish such upon a request and showing of need therefor. Id. at 845. Compare Fruit Bowl, Inc. v. Cheathem, 155 So. 2d 865 (Fla.1963) (first order denied benefits including medical — held change of condition under Section 440.28 required to be shown to support subsequent claim).…
-
Emmett Ford v. Alexander Cabinet Co. & Am. Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 467 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…ion of compensation orders, not to modification of orders relating to medical benefits. We reject this argument because Section 440.28 has been construed to encompass modification of orders relating to medical benefits. Fruit Bowl, Inc. v. Cheathem, 155 So. 2d 865 (Fla.1963); Bishop v. Pinellas Framing & Finishing, 414 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We do, however, think the language of Section 440.28 lacks preciseness because medical benefits are not always considered compensation. For example, remedial me…
-
Heter v. Buning THE Florist & Gulf Ins. Co., 396 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…e from relitigating the 1977 order. Under the Workers’ Compensation Act, modification pursuant to the terms of § 440.28, Florida Statutes, is the prescribed relief from the doctrine of res judicata. The Fruit Bowl, Inc., et al. v. Cheathem, [*1203] 155 So. 2d 865, 867 (Fla.1963). Here, the deputy properly treated Heter’s motion as a petition for modification. We agree with the deputy that the record does not demonstrate a change of condition or mistake of fact so as to warrant modification. Accordingly, the…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Martin Co. & Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Drucella Carpenter & Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 132 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1961)
- S. H. Kress & Co. v. Burkes, 153 Fla. 868 (Fla. 1944)
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hudson, 112 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Thomas v. Carter Fruit & Produce Co., 137 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1962)