LOUELLA CHEATHEM, PETITIONER, CROSS-RESPONDENT,
v.
THE FRUIT BOWL, INC., SECURITY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. OF NEW YORK, AND THE FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS, CROSS-PETITIONERS
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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the Industrial Commission's reversal of a deputy commissioner's award for modification of benefits based on changed condition. The court held that the claimant failed to meet her burden of proving a material change in condition through competent, substantial, and logical evidence.
The court held that the claimant failed to sustain her burden of proof to show a change of condition. Although the deputy commissioner's factual findings ordinarily deserve deference, they must rest on competent, substantial, logical, and reasonable testimony. The claimant's testimony that she experienced the same type of pain but more severe was insufficient to meet this standard.
“the unseverable restriction remains, i. e., that the testimony he chooses must be competent, substantial, logical and reasonable.”
Establishes the standard for appellate review of fact-finder determinations in workers' compensation cases - while deference is given to the deputy commissioner's factual findings, the testimony must meet a strict quality requirement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLouella Cheathem had previously had her workers' compensation claim dismissed with allowance only for medical expenses, drugs, and transportation cost…
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 Change In Condition cases and more on FLexlaw
This is the second appearance of this controversy in this court. Our opinion in the first appeal is recorded in 155 So.2d at page 865. Following the ruling in that case, that the claim having been dismissed with allowance only for medical expenses, drugs and transportation costs, a further award was improper except on petition under F.S.A. Sec. 440.28 of Workmen’s Compensation Law on the ground that there had been a mistake of fact or, a change of condition.
Pursuant to that decision the claimant filed a petition for modification on the ground that there had been a change in her condition justifying increased compensation and medical benefits. The deputy commissioner ruled in her favor but upon review the Full Commission reversed because of their conviction that the ruling was not supported by competent substantial evidence according with logic and reason.
The gist of the claimant’s position in the present appeal, to quote from claimant’s brief, is “that the pain she suffered from was of the same nature and in the same area [as before] but worse in intensity.” Her testimony in support of the contention that a change of condition had occurred is weak indeed. And there appears no other testimony to supply its deficiencies. For instance, she testified “The pains seem to be worse than they were when I was here before. But I have the same type of pains, only more.” And, again, she said “I was having the pain everyday but they [sic] didn’t seem to be as bad as they are now.”
These quotations are relied upon to invoke the rule that the deputy’s conclusions will withstand assaults upon them since he is the undisputed trier of the facts. Although his province may not be invaded by the Full Commission simply because that body chooses a different interpretation of the facts developed before the deputy the unseverable restriction remains, i. e., that the testimony he chooses must be competent, substantial, logical and reasonable.
The burden of proof to show a change of condition was put upon the claimant, Nix v. Merrill-Stevens Dry Dock and Repair Co., Fla.App., 107 So.2d 616, and she did not sustain it by testimony of the quality specified in United States Casualty Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 55 So.2d 741 (Fla.1951).
It is our conviction that the order of the Full Commission dismissing the claim for modification should be—
Approved.
THORNAL, C. J., and ROBERTS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gadsden Cnty. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction v. Dickson, 191 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1966)…disputed facts does not, however, carry with it a presumption of infallibility as to the conclusions he may have drawn from the facts found by him to be proved. Recently, this Court, speaking through Justice Thomas in Cheatham v. Fruit Bowl, Inc., 184 So. 2d 171, reiterated the foregoing principles and referring to the examiners’ findings of fact stated: “Although his province may not be invaded * * * the unseverable restriction remains, i. e., that the testimony he chooses must be competent, substantial,…
-
Robinson v. JDM Country Club & Corporate Grp. Serv., 455 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…standing alone’, is insufficient to establish a change in condition." Austin Co. v. Lindenberger, 410 So. 2d 601, 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), citing Mahler v. Lauderdale Lakes National Bank, 322 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1975), and Cheathem v. Fruit Bowl, Inc., 184 So. 2d 171 (Fla.1966).…
-
The Austin Co. & Gen. Accident Grp. v. Lindenberger, 410 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…’s own testimony, as to increase in intensity of pain and inability to do hard work, standing alone, is insufficient to establish change in condition. Mahler v. Lauderdale Lakes National Bank, 322 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1975); Cheathem v. Fruit Bowl, Inc., 184 So. 2d 171 (Fla.1966). Second, the E/C argue that there is insufficient evidence on which to predicate a finding of increased wage earning capacity loss from 12% to 25%. We agree. The record reveals that the E/C sufficiently rebutted claimant’s alleged job se…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- US Cas. Co. v. Md. Cas. Co., 55 So.2d 741 (Fla. 1951)
- Alza R. NIX v. Merrill-Stevens DRY Dock & Repair Co. & Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 107 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)