MAUDRICK FREEMAN, PETITIONER,
v.
ACME ROOF DECKS, INC., HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO., 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 the deputy commissioner's order lacked sufficient findings of fact regarding compensation amounts and computation, preventing intelligent review.
The petitioner sought review of an order approving a settlement claim. The deputy commissioner's order was unclear regarding the amount of compensatio…
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 Administrative Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
We are asked to review a stereotyped order of the Full Commission approving an order of the deputy commissioner undertaking to settle the claim of the petitioner.
We were thus sent to the record and the original order itself to determine whether or not there was occasion to interfere. Although it seems to us thoroughly established that the petitioner was not a full-time employee, we have not found in the deputy’s order sufficient information with reference to the amount of compensation that should he awarded and the manner of computing it.
It is required by Sec. 440.25(3) (c) that an order rejecting or approving a claim “shall set forth a statement of the findings of fact and other matters pertinent to the questions at issue * * Adherence to the rule is necessary to an “intelligent review of the result” reached by the deputy commissioner. Hardy v. City of Tarpon Springs et al., Fla., 81 So.2d 503.
Our study of the deputy’s findings, and his report in toto, leaves us at a loss to understand how he arrived at the amounts awarded. Feeling that the findings are so unclear that it cannot be decided with accuracy whether the workman was awarded less than his due, as he contends, or more than he deserves, as is urged on behalf of the respondents, the order of the Full Commission is quashed, so far as it treats of the award of the compensation, as distinguished from the fixing of the status of the claimant as a part-time employee, with directions that the case he remanded to the deputy for revision consonant with the views here expressed.
ROBERTS, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and HOBSON (Retired), JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coral Gables Hosp. & Esis, Inc. v. Tataronis, 438 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…oss benefits, and remand for reconsideration and clarification by the deputy, because we are unable to determine from the record on appeal, or from the order, how the computation of wage loss benefits is to be made. Freeman v. Acme Roof Decks, Inc., 173 So. 2d 685 (Fla.1965). Finally, we must reverse the award of medical benefits. Claimant’s medical bills were paid by her group insurance carrier. At the hearing below, there was no evidence of the amount of those bills, or whether there was a causal relation…
Authorities Cited
- Hampton Hardy v. City OF Tarpon Springs, 81 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1955)