BARNEY MCCOY WOODCOCK, PETITIONER,
v.
WARREN'S GARMENT & INDUSTRIAL SERVICE, INC., AND FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS
BARNEY MCCOY WOODCOCK, PETITIONER,
WARREN'S GARMENT & INDUSTRIAL SERVICE, INC., AND FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS
180 So. 2d 463
Florida Supreme Court (1965)
Caution
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date June 29, 1965.
We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 31 F.S.A.
Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.
The petition is therefore denied.
It is further ordered that the petitioner’s application for allowance of attorney’s fees be and the same is hereby denied.
THORNAL, C. J., and ROBERTS, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brantley v. A D H Bldg. Contractors, Inc., 215 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1968)…ustrial Commission has, itself, squarely held that penalties under the statute are not assessable against the portion of an award covering allowances for medical expenses. Jessup v. Don’s Gulf Service Station, FIC 1965, Dec.No. 201472, cert. denied, 180 So. 2d 463 (Fla.1965). To the extent that the order under review reversed the deputy’s order allowing a penalty based on medical bills, it is approved. Otherwise certiorari is granted and the order of the Full Commission is quashed and the matter is remanded…1 / 2
-
COX OIL & Sales, Inc. v. Boettcher, 410 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…o claimant’s wife for nursing services. That is not “compensation” within the meaning and application of the statute assessing penalties for the late payment of compensation. Accord, Jessup v. Don’s Gulf Service, IRC Order 2-1472 (1965), cert. den., 180 So. 2d 463 (Fla.1965). The question was not raised and addressed in Jones v. Cling Electric, Inc., 397 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), which therefore is not contrary to our decision today. On remand the $15 arithmetic error may be corrected. AFFIRMED IN PAR…