MORRIS LIEBER, PETITIONER,
v.
MORRIS LIEBER, INC., GENERAL ACCIDENT GROUP, 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 court held that a de novo hearing on a workers' compensation claim, necessitated by the loss of the original transcript, requires quashing the prior award and entering a new order based on proffered evidence.
The employer sought review of a disability award but could not obtain a transcript due to the reporter's disappearance and illegible notes. The employ…
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 Transcript Of Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioner, claimant Morris Lieber, seeks review by certiorari of an order of the Commission remanding this cause, pursuant to F.S. Section 440.33(1), F.S.A., for hearing de novo before the deputy commissioner upon the claim for compensation. In an earlier appearance of the claim in this Court preliminary issues were determined, independent of those involved in the current claim filed April 2, 1963, General Accident Group v. Morris Lieber et al., Fla.1962, 146 So.2d 896. We find that oral argument is not essential to the disposition of this petition and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 31 F.S.A.
The respondent employer filed timely application for review of the award for permanent partial disability compensation herein, and subsequently learned that it would be impossible to obtain a transcript of testimony because of the disappearance of the reporter, illegibility of his notes, and lack of other record of the proceedings. Motion for hearing de novo was thereupon filed.
This motion was, in our opinion, very properly granted in conformity with the affirmative requirements of the compensation law, F.S. Sections 440.29(2), 440.02(8) and 440.25, F.S.A., that-testimony shall be reported and orders reviewed upon a transcript. We believe, however, that a de novo hearing upon the claim necessarily encompasses a quashal of the award previously made and the entry of an order anew by the deputy based solely upon such evidence as may now be proffered. That portion of the Commission’s order extending time for filing transcript, if intended to preserve its *314jurisdiction under the application to review the original order, would therefore appear to be inapposite.
The order of the Commission should otherwise be affirmed and the cause remanded for further proceedings to be conducted, in view of the protracted time already elapsed since the initiation of these proceedings in 1961, with all possible expedition.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, ROBERTS, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henderson's Portion PAK & Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Jones, 281 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1973)…ent, until the completion of the hearing on the merits. I respectfully dissent. . 261 So. 2d 829 (Fla.1972). . 234 So. 2d 644 (Fla.1970). . Id. at 645. . Claim No. R-5314, cert. denied, 81 So. 2d 807 (Fla.1955). . 139 So. 2d 423 (Fla.1962). . 168 So. 2d 313 (Fla.1964). . 216 So. 2d 745 (Fla.1968).…
-
Hezekiah McCLINTON v. Royal Moving & Storage, 435 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Finally, McClinton requests that a new hearing be granted because the testimony of the two Royal employees was inaudible and, therefore, not in the record, preventing adequate appellate review. Lieber v. Morris Lieber, Inc., 168 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1964). In Lieber, however, the entire transcript was lost. Here, only a portion of the testimony was lacking in the transcript. Additionally, the record contains a statement signed by McClinton and his counsel stipulating to the inaudible test…
-
Warddell v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., 256 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1971)…up v. Lieber, 146 So. 2d 896 (Fla.1962). The issue before us here is whether in the circumstances the dismissal constituted an abuse of such discretion. The instant case bears a striking similarity to the situation in Lieber v. Morris Lieber, Inc., 168 So. 2d 313 (Fla.1964). In that case, the employer filed timely application for review with the Commission, and subsequently it was learned that it would be impossible to obtain a transcript of the testimony taken before the Claims Judge because of the disappea…
Authorities Cited
- Gen. Accident Grp. v. Lieber, 146 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1962)