CALVIN CLENNEY, PETITIONER,
v.
WALKER HAULING CO., MICHIGAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AND THE 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 denied certiorari review of a workers' compensation decision, but used the occasion to publicly criticize the system's unconscionable delays—noting that over four years had elapsed between the claimant's injury and final administrative review. While procedurally denying the petition, the Court remanded the case to the Industrial Commission with a mandate to conclude proceedings within 60 days.
The Court found no deviation from the essential requirements of law and therefore denied the petition for certiorari. However, the Court remanded the case to the Commission with instructions that proceedings be concluded within 60 days.
“The Workmen's Compensation Act was passed in order to secure an expeditious method of settlement of claims of those injured in industrial accidents but it is evident that claimant here has suffered an industrial injury and through no fault of his own has long been deprived of the very rights the Act was intended to provide.”
Establishes the statutory purpose and criticizes the failure to achieve it in this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCalvin Clenney was injured while working in March 1964. Following a complicated series of events, a Judge of Industrial Claims entered an order for co…
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 Workmen'S Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date May 28, 1968.
We have heard oral argument and our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs lead us to the conclusion that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law and that therefore the petition for writ of certiorari must be denied.
By way of caveat, however, we note that claimant was injured while working in March of 1964 and through a complicated series of events the Judge of Industrial Claims finally entered an order for compensation in November of 1967 which the Florida Industrial Commission reversed and remanded in May of 1968 and which order we now review more than four years after the injury. The Workmen’s Compensation Act was passed in order to secure an expeditious method of settlement of claims of those injured in industrial accidents but it is evident that claimant here has suffered an industrial injury and through no fault of his own has long been deprived of the very rights the Act was intended to provide. This is one of a long series of such cases where an unconscionable period of time has elapsed between an injury and the final decision on benefits. We do not here undertake to fix the responsibility on any person but rather on a system which permits such to happen. We publicly call this problem to the attention of responsible officials, including the State Legislature, in the hope that appropriate corrections can be promptly made.
We therefore deny certiorari and return to the Commission for remand to the Judge of Industrial Claims for further proceedings, which proceedings shall be concluded by the Commission within sixty days from this date.
It is so ordered.
CALDWELL, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and ADAMS (Ret.), JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mahoney v. Sears, 419 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…sses the fundamental purpose of workers’ compensation acts to provide for employees a remedy that is both expeditious and independent of proof of fault and for employers a liability that is limited and determinate. See Clenney v. Walker Hauling Co., 217 So. 2d 114 Fla. 1968); McLean v. Mundy, 81 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1955). In other words, the certain remedy afforded by the Act is deemed to be a sufficient substitute for the doubtful right accorded by the common law. In return, the employer “may not plead as a defe…