NINA B. GRIMS, PETITIONER,
v.
SUPER-X DRUGS OF FLORIDA, INC., AND SELECTIVE 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.
In this workers' compensation case, the Florida Supreme Court reviewed the Industrial Commission's reversal of a Judge of Industrial Claims' award to an injured claimant. The Court held that the Full Commission improperly departed from its proper functions by reversing a well-reasoned and evidence-supported compensation order, and reinstated the order with modifications to penalties and attorneys' fees.
The Court held that the Full Commission's reversal and remand constituted an improper departure from its proper functions and that the Judge of Industrial Claims' order should have been approved. The Court reversed the Full Commission's order and reinstated the Judge's order, with modifications: the 20% penalty should have been applied only to temporary total disability for the period August 23, 1965 to October 11, 1965, and the penalty for remaining temporary total and partial disability should have been 10%. The attorneys' fees award was to be reevaluated on remand according to Lee Engineering.
“our careful consideration of this order laid alongside of the order of the Judge of Industrial Claims constitutes a clear departure from the proper functions of the Full Commission”
Establishes that the Full Commission exceeded its appellate authority in reversing a well-reasoned and supported order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant Nina Grims suffered a compensable injury. A Judge of Industrial Claims conducted proceedings including testimony from medical experts and cla…
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 Penalties cases and more on FLexlaw
In its first appearance before the Full Commission, this compensation case was returned to the Deputy for further consideration of his initial findings which were, with one exception, categorically vacated by the Full Commission. In the initial order of remand, the Deputy was specifically instructed to “determine the date of maximum medical improvement, permanent partial disability, if any * *
On remand, further testimony was received by the Deputy (then Judge of Industrial Claims) from an orthopedic surgeon, a neurologist, and claimant. Upon consideration of such additional evidence and that which had been previously submitted, the Judge of Industrial Claims entered its second compensation order containing exhaustive and detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Such order found that claimant suffered a 5% permanent disability of the body as a whole and an additional 5% permanent disability because of anxiety reaction, both of which resulted in a wage-earning capacity loss equivalent to 35'% permanent partial disability. Attorneys fees and penalties were likewise awarded claimant.
On review, the Full Commission again reversed and remanded for further proceedings. No useful purpose would be served by a detailed review of the order of the Full Commission here under consideration. It is sufficient to say that our careful consideration of this order laid alongside of the order of the Judge of Industrial Claims constitutes a clear departure from the proper functions of the Full Commission. The order of the Judge of Industrial Claims, with the exception hereafter noted, is complete in all respects and the conclusions therein are clearly supported by competent, substantial evidence. It should have been approved by the Full Commission.
Claimant concedes that that portion of the compensation order of the Judge of Industrial Claims assigning a 20% penalty with regard to all compensation paid for temporary disability is erroneous and should have been applied to that portion of compensation for temporary total disability contained in the initial order; that is, the period August 23, 1965, to October 11, 1965. The penalty applicable to the remainder of compensation paid for temporary total and temporary partial should have been 10%. It will also be necessary on remand to reevaluate the award of attorneys fees in accordance with this Court’s decision in Lee Engineering and Construction Co. v. Fellows, 209 So.2d 454 (Fla. 1968).
*303The questioned order of the Full Commission be quashed with directions to reinstate the compensation order of the Judge of Industrial Claims, as here modified with relation to penalties and attorneys fees.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS and BOYD, 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)