HERMAN HOWARD, PETITIONER,
v.
M. G. O'NEAL, D/B/A CONCRETE BATCHING COMPANY, GREAT AMERICAN INDEMNITY CO., FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS

Fla. | 1964-07-08
No. 33366
DREW, C. J., THORNAL and HOB-SON (Ret.), JJ., and MASON, Circuit Judge, concur.
166 So. 2d 793 Florida Supreme Court (1964)

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.

Synopsis

Herman Howard sought modification of a workers' compensation award, claiming his physical condition had worsened and his wage-earning capacity had been more severely impaired than previously determined. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Industrial Commission's reversal of the deputy commissioner's decision, finding competent substantial evidence supported the deputy's findings of a change in physical condition and increased permanent disability.


Holding

The deputy commissioner's order was supported by competent substantial evidence and complied with applicable legal principles. The full commission's reversal was improper, and the deputy commissioner's compensation order awarding additional benefits for the worsened condition and increased permanent disability was reinstated.


Key Quotes

“We have heard oral argument and have carefully examined the record to determine whether the order of the deputy commissioner and his findings were based upon competent substantial evidence, and is in accord with logic and reason.”

Establishes the standard of review applied by the Court to workers' compensation commission decisions.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Howard sustained a compensable back injury on March 3, 1955, while lifting a boom hoist. Initial compensation included 62 weeks of total disability pa…

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
ROBERTS, Justice.

ROBERTS, Justice.

Petitioner, Herman Howard, sustained a compensable injury to his back on March 3, 1955, while lifting a boom hoist from an automobile. Compensation for total disability was paid by the carrier for a period of sixty-two weeks and thereafter compensation was paid for a residual twenty percent permanent partial disability of the body as a whole. On April 10, 1959, a claim for additional compensation and further remedial treatment was made. The parties stipulated that the carrier would pay claimant an additional ten percent permanent partial disability over the original twenty percent formerly agreed upon and thereafter the stipulation was approved by the deputy commissioner by order dated May 28, 1959. Two years later claimant filed a petition to modify this order pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 440.28, F.S.A., claiming a change in physical condition and a mistake in the determination of fact in that impairment of the claimant’s wage earning capacity had proved greater than the percentage determined on the 28th of May, 1959. After a hearing before the commission which included the testimony of two medical doctors and the claimant the deputy found, inter alia, that claimant had undergone a second operation on his back “because of the change in the condition of his back;” that claimant suffered a temporary total disability for the period of October 1, 1961 to December 15, 1961, for which he is entitled to compensation; and that due to his back and leg condition the claimant’s wage earning capacity has been impaired by forty percent as a result of his permanent back injury. The employer and carrier applied to the full commission for review, urging that there was no competent substantial evidence to support a finding by the deputy commissioner that there has been a change in claimant’s physical condition nor has there been a mistake in the determination of fact. The full commission by a 2-1 decision reversed the order of the deputy commissioner and dismissed the claim.

*794We have heard oral argument and have carefully examined the record to determine whether the order of the deputy commissioner and his findings were based upon competent substantial evidence, and is in accord with logic and reason. United States Casualty Company v. Maryland Casualty Company, 55 So.2d 741, Fla.1951; Andrews v. Strecker Body Builders, 92 So.2d 521, Fla.1957; Young v. Dreamland Bedding Company, 133 So.2d 414, Fla.1961.

We find that the record does reflect such evidence and that the compensation order of the deputy complies with the requirements of the foregoing decisions and with the principles delineated in Ball v. Mann, 75 So.2d 758, Fla.1954.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of cer-tiorari is granted and the order of the full commission is quashed with directions to reinstate the compensation order of the deputy commissioner dated March 19, 1963.

It is so ordered.

DREW, C. J., THORNAL and HOB-SON (Ret.), JJ., and MASON, Circuit Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw