IRENE ANNA AZARIAN, PETITIONER,
v.
VARTAN AZARIAN ET AL., 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.
Irene Anna Azarian sought workers' compensation benefits for a finger injury sustained while working with Vartan Azarian. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the full commission's reversal of the deputy commissioner's award, finding that Azarian was not an employee entitled to workers' compensation and that the carrier's initial acceptance of the claim did not establish ultimate liability.
The full commission correctly held that claimant was not an employee of Vartan Lithographers and therefore not entitled to workers' compensation benefits. The legal relationship between the parties did not constitute an employer-employee relationship. The initial acceptance of the claim by the carrier had no bearing on its ultimate liability for additional benefits.
“we do not believe that the conclusions of the deputy commissioner that claimant has a residual 50 per cent permanent partial disability of the hand and that claimant is an employee of Vartan Lithographers are supported by competent substantial evidence”
The full commission's holding that reversed the deputy commissioner's award and found the conclusions unsupported by competent substantial evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn March 1959, Irene Anna Azarian cut her left little finger on a piece of glass while working with Vartan Azarian, who operated Vartan Lithographers.…
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 Worker'S Compensation Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
The claimant, Irene Anna Azarian, sought workmen’s compensation for a disability incurred in March of 1959 after she cut her left little finger on a piece of glass when a bowl slipped from her hand while working with respondent, Vartan Azarian, d/b/a Vartan Lithographers. The respondent carrier initially accepted the claim as compensable and furnished remedial treatment, as well as compensation for temporary total disability, and 15 weeks’ permanent partial disability. A claim was filed for additional benefits which was controverted by the carrier on the ground that claimant was not an employee of Vartan Azarian Lithographers. The deputy commissioner found that claimant was an employee, had sustained a 50% residual permanent partial disability of the hand, and was entitled to compensation. The full commission reversed the order of the deputy commissioner and agreed with the contentions of the carrier, holding “ * * * we do not believe that the conclusions of the deputy commissioner that claimant has a residual 50 per cent permanent partial disability of the hand and that claimant is an employee of Vartan Lithographers are supported by competent substantial evidence.”'
After review of the record and the hearing of oral argument, it is our opinion the holding of the full commission that claimant was not an employee of Var-*443tan Lithographers was correct, in that there was not competent substantial evidence according with logic and reason to support a contrary view by the deputy commissioner. Likewise, the legal situation existing did not amount to that of employer and employee. Rogers v. Barrett, 46 So.2d 490, Fla.1950; Lindsey v. Willis, Fla.App., 101 So.2d 422; Maige v. Cannon, Fla.App., 98 So.2d 399. The mere fact that a carrier initially accepts a claim as compensable has no bearing on its ultimate liability for payment should a claim be filed for additional benefits.
Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is denied.
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, THQR-NAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Scalise, 627 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…accepted the claim and paid benefits did not preclude Liberty [*90] Mutual from subsequently challenging coverage, because the evidence was insufficient to establish the elements necessary for an estoppel. We agree. See generally Azarian v. Azarian, 166 So. 2d 442 (Fla.1964); Key v. Goley, 402 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). . Section 440.05(2), Florida Statutes (1981), reads: Every sole proprietor or partner who elects to be included in the definition of "employee” or who, after such election, then revokes…
-
Regency Elec. Co. & CNA Ins. Co. v. Honrath, 673 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…at he was covered under the Florida system. Lafave v. Bay Consol. Distribs., 546 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The erroneous payment of Florida benefits cannot create workers’ compensation coverage that does not otherwise exist. Azarian v. Azarian, 166 So. 2d 442 (Fla.1964) (en bane); Tradewinds Constr. v. Newsbaum, 606 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), review denied, 618 So. 2d 210 (Fla.1993). REVERSED and REMANDED for further consistent proceedings. BARFIELD and DAVIS, JJ., concur. . Honrath is entitled t…
Authorities Cited
- Lindsey v. Willis, 101 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Asa E. Maige v. Ozell Cannon, 98 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)
- Johnson v. Tropical Roofing Co., 98 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)