EVA LOUISE DAVIS, PETITIONER,
v.
WAVES MOTEL, SUN CITY MOTEL, 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.
The claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for dermatitis, which the deputy commissioner awarded as an occupational disease. The Full Commission reversed and remanded, directing benefits be considered as a scheduled injury, despite respondents not raising this issue on appeal. The appellate court found the Commission's action erroneous for deciding an unraised issue.
Yes, the Full Commission erred by reversing and remanding the case on grounds not properly presented on appeal. Courts and commissions are not permitted to decide issues that have not been raised by the parties.
“In view of the facts as briefly stated above, the Full Commission’s action was patently erroneous.”
Establishes the court's finding that the Full Commission's decision was incorrect.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEva Louise Davis filed a workers' compensation claim for dermatitis caused by detergents used in her employment. The deputy commissioner found it to b…
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 Scheduled Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition for writ of certiorari the claimant, Eva Louise Davis, seeks review of the Full Commission’s order reversing and remanding the deputy’s order awarding certain workmen’s compensation benefits to petitioner.
Petitioner filed a claim for workmen’s compensation benefits as a result of contracting dermatitis through the use of detergents during and in the course of her employment.
From the outset, all parties, including the deputy, treated this claim as a claim for benefits as a result of an “occupational disease.” Accordingly, the deputy found that petitioner suffered from an “occupational disease,” and awarded certain disability benefits to petitioner on this basis.
Respondents filed an application for review to the Full Commission assigning certain specific errors. However, respondents, in their application for review, brief, or oral argument before the Commission, did not challenge the deputy’s finding (which was the basis for the award) that petitioner’s injury was due to an “occupational disease.”
The Commission set aside the deputy’s order and remanded the cause with directions, in essence, that the claim be reconsidered and benefits awarded on the basis of a “scheduled injury” and not an “occupational disease.”
In view of the facts as briefly stated above, the Full Commission’s action was patently erroneous. The Commission, just as this Court itself, is not free to determine questions that are not properly raised on appeal. This is basic and further elaboration is unnecessary; this question was not raised in respondents’ application for review but was raised for the first time by the Commission on its own volition.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The order of the Full Commission is vacated and set aside and the cause is remanded to the Full Commission, with directions to review the cause only on the questions properly presented by the respondents in their application for review.
It is so ordered.
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.