EDWARD LIQUORI, PETITIONER,
v.
HEFTLER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE 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 Supreme Court dismissed a petition for a writ of certiorari as premature because the order being appealed was interlocutory. The Commission had vacated a deputy's compensation order and remanded it for further findings regarding the claimant's overall disability, earning capacity, and apportionment of prior injuries.
Yes, the petition for a writ of certiorari is premature because the Commission's order is interlocutory in nature.
“Since the Commission's order is on its face interlocutory in nature, we conclude that the petition here is premature and should be dismissed ex mero motu, without prejudice to a consideration of any issue properly raised upon final disposition of the claim.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning for dismissing the petition as premature due to the interlocutory nature of the Commission's order.
The Florida Industrial Commission vacated a deputy commissioner's compensation order, finding that it failed to adequately address the claimant's over…
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 Diminished Earning Capacity cases and more on FLexlaw
The petition for writ of certiorari in this case is directed to an order of the Commission vacating a compensation order by the deputy because it “does not determine claimant’s over-all disability as a result of his back condition and his diminution of earning capacity pursuant to the [proper] criteria,” and because it “fails to mention or show that he considered the apportionment aspects of the prior injuries and the com-pensable Florida accident,” under F.S. Sec. 440.02(19), F.S.A. The cause was remanded “with directions to enter a new Compensation Order containing findings of fact in conformity with the views hereinabove expressed, with authority to conduct such hearings as, in his discretion, he deems necessary.”
Since the Commission’s order is on its face interlocutory in nature, we conclude that the petition here is premature and should be dismissed ex mero motu, without prejudice to a consideration of any issue *114properly raised upon final disposition of the claim. Bachelder v. Four Way Nursery, Fla.1962, 136 So.2d 643; Steele v. Johnston, Fla.1962, 143 So.2d 36.
It is so ordered.
DREW, C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS, O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Matthews v. Seaboard Props., Inc., 250 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1971)…hed rule of law that an order of the Industrial Relations Commission remanding for further evidence is not final, but is interlocutory and nonrev-iewable. Bachelder v. Four Way Nursery, 136 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1962); Liquori v. Heftier Construction Co., 160 So. 2d 113 (Fla.1964). The primary purpose of this rule is to permit the Commission, when evidence or findings of fact are inadequate to permit proper review, to remand for further evidence and findings of fact. The rule does not apply in those cases where th…
-
Sims v. Palm Beach Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs, 277 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1973)…hed rule of law that an order of the Industrial Relations Commission remanding for further evidence is not final, but is interlocutory and non-reviewable. Bachelder v. Four Way Nursery, 136 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1962); Liquori v. Heftler Construction Co., 160 So. 2d 113 (Fla.1964). We recited that the rule’s purpose is to al [*531] low the Commission to remand for sufficient facts for a proper review. This remains a valid purpose and prerogative of the Commission. Upon review of this rule of law, however, which has…
-
Millis v. McCANN Hardware Co., 278 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1972)…her proceedings consistent herewith. It is so ordered. ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON and DEKLE, JJ., concur. . Patrylo v. Nautilus Hotel, 142 So. 2d 279, 281 (Fla.1962). . Ibid. . 250 So. 2d 849 (Fla.1971). . 136 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1962). . 160 So. 2d 113 (Fla.1964).…
Authorities Cited
- Bachelder v. Four WAY Nursery, 136 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1962)
- Steele v. Johnston, 143 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1962)