FRANK C. FLUELLEN, PETITIONER, CROSS-RESPONDENT,
v.
SANTINI BROTHERS, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed an order of the Florida Industrial Commission, granting certiorari in part to allow a doctor's fee for Dr. Ferdie Pacheco, while denying other aspects of the petitions. The case was remanded to determine the specific amount of medical fees for Dr. Pacheco.
The court held that the order of the full commission was correct, except that Dr. Ferdie Pacheco should be awarded medical fees in addition to an expert witness fee. The cause was remanded to the deputy commissioner to determine the amount of these medical fees.
“Accordingly, the writ is issued and that portion of the award of the deputy commissioner awarding only an expert witness fee to Dr. Pacheco is quashed and the cause remanded to the deputy commissioner to determine the amount of the medical fees that should be awarded to Dr. Pacheco.”
This quote explains the specific action taken by the court regarding Dr. Pacheco's fees and the remand instruction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida Industrial Commission issued an order on November 17, 1966. The claimant, Frank C. Fluellen, and the respondents, Santini Brothers, Inc., …
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.
By petition and cross-petition for writs of certiorari we have for review an order of Florida Industrial Commission hearing date November 17, 1966.
No oral argument is deemed necessary, and upon consideration of the petitions, the record and briefs it is concluded that the order of the full commission is. correct, except that a doctor’s fee should he allowed Dr. Ferdie Pacheco. Accordingly, the writ is issued and that portion of the award of the deputy commissioner awarding only an expert witness fee to Dr. Pacheco is quashed and the cause remanded to the deputy commissioner to determine the amount of the medical fees that should be awarded to Dr. Pacheco. In all other respects the prayer of the petition is denied and the cross-petition is denied. A fee of $250.00 is awarded the attorney for the claimant for services rendered in this court.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and DREW, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ-, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Tampa v. Islands Four, Inc., 364 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…nances afford definite, reasonable factors3 to guide a discretionary agency action, and there is sufficient, competent evidence to support the findings of the agency, its action is not arbitrary or capricious. See, e.g., Hope v. City of Gainesville, 195 So. 2d 849 (Fla.1967); De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla.1957). Our decision is dependent on certain provisions of the code of the City of Tampa. Section 6-41 applies to issuance of a license for a public dance hall and section 6-44 to a forfeiture or…
-
Gaines v. The City OF Orlando, 450 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…unicipal charter enacted or adopted pri- or to July 1, 1973, is hereby nullified and repealed. . Scott v. City of Orlando, 173 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). . State v. City of Riviera Beach, 397 So. 2d 685 (Fla.1981); Hope v. City of Gainesville, 195 So. 2d 849 (Fla.1967). . U.S. CONST., art. I, § 10; Art. I, § 10, Fla. Const. . Ch. 9861-(No. 743), § 6, Laws of Fla. (1923). . See Ch. 83-343, Laws of Fla.; Ch. 82-415, Laws of Fla. . Article VIII, Section 2(b) of the Florida Constitution provides; [m]un…
-
State v. City OF Riviera Beach, 397 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1981)…ing bonds to extend a city water system into two other municipalities; Ide v. City of St. Cloud, 150 Fla. 806, 8 So. 2d 924 (1942), upholding the power of a city to operate a bathing beach in a park outside the city; and Hope v. City of Gainesville, 195 So. 2d 849 (Fla.1967), validating bonds to extend city water, sewer, and electric system outside the city boundaries. See also Town of Palm Beach v. City of West Palm Beach, 239 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), upholding the right of a city to construct an ocea…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence