FRED HOWLAND, INC., AND TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
v.
ADOLPH RUTKAUSKAS 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 Florida Supreme Court upheld the Florida Industrial Commission's unanimous affirmance of a deputy's order increasing a claimant's disability rating based on a finding that his physical condition had worsened. Although the court acknowledged it might have decided differently, it found the deputy's decision supported by competent, substantial evidence and declined to disturb it.
The court affirmed the Industrial Commission's unanimous affirmance, holding that the deputy's order, though debatable, was supported by competent, substantial evidence and therefore not subject to reversal. The burden of proving changed conditions rests on the claimant and may be discharged through competent, substantial evidence, with the same evidentiary rules applying to modification proceedings as to initial claims.
“By a comprehensive order, with extensive findings, the deputy accepted the judgment of doctors who expressed the opinion that the physical condition of claimant had actually changed for the worse and supported a finding of an increased percentage of disability.”
Establishes the factual basis for the deputy's decision that was being reviewed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant Rutkauskas sought modification of his workers' compensation disability rating, arguing his physical condition had changed for the worse. The …
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
We have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission which unanimously affirmed an order of a deputy who increased a disability rating with a finding that conditions had changed.
We have carefully studied the record and briefs. By a comprehensive order, with extensive findings, the deputy accepted the judgment of doctors who expressed the opinion that the physical condition of claimant had actually changed for the worse and supported a finding of an increased percentage of disability.
We are frank to state that had we been in the deputy’s place we might well have found otherwise. However, our review of the record compels us to conclude that this order is not totally lacking in competent substantial evidentiary support. It is true that the burden of proof to establish a change rests upon the claimant. Felix v. Lawnlite Company, 174 So.2d 743 (Fla.1965). This burden may be discharged by submission of competent, substantial evidence reflecting the change. The rules governing the acceptability and weight of evidence in the initial claim proceeding are equally applicable to a modification proceeding. We are not inclined to disturb the unanimous affirmance of the deputy by the full Commission.
We note in passing two matters which are not raised. We mention them only to record that they have not been overlooked. The deputy ordered that the increased allowance be applied retroactively to the date previously established for maximum medical improvement nearly six years earlier. We have not undertaken to evaluate the impact of this provision in the instant case because the point is not raised. In some instances, especially where permanent, total disability results from a change, such a provision could present difficult problems. Sierra v. Deauville Operating Co., 213 So.2d 418 (Fla.1968). Furthermore, in fixing the attorneys’ fee the deputy did not comply with our opinion in Lee Engineering & Construction Co. v. Fellows, 209 So.2d 454 (Fla.1968). Inasmuch as no objection on these grounds is raised by petitioner we will not act on them sua sponte.
The petition for certiorari is denied.
CALDWELL, C. J., and THOMAS, DREW, THORNAL and HOPPING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gray v. Attorney Gen., State of Fla. and/or State Attorney, Cir. Court, Volusia Cnty., Fla., 209 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1968)
- Wyeth Gosnell v. GUY Caskey Rambler Co., 213 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1968)
- City OF Hialeah v. Hutchins, 174 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 1965)