RENE PAYETTE, PETITIONER,
v.
GULFSTREAM AIR-CONDITIONING, INC., HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY 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.
A workers' compensation claimant sought relief after the Florida Industrial Commission reversed a Judge's finding that his herniated disc was causally related to a compensable workplace injury. The Supreme Court held that the Commission abused its discretion by substituting its judgment for the Judge's when competent and substantial evidence supported the Judge's finding.
The Industrial Commission erred in reversing the Judge's order. The Supreme Court held that because competent and substantial evidence supported the Judge's findings, the Full Commission lacked the authority to substitute its opinion for that of the Judge. The compensation order was reinstated.
“It is beyond the province of the Full Commission to substitute their opinion for that of the Judge when the Judge's order is based upon competent substantial evidence.”
Establishes the standard of review limiting the Commission's ability to second-guess the Judge's findings when supported by competent evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 12, 1967, Payette suffered a fractured rib in a workplace accident. Although he returned to work on June 12, 1967, he complained of hip sorenes…
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 Medical History cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition for certiorari, we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission reversing the order of the Judge of Industrial Claims.
The claimant suffered a fractured rib in a compensable injury on May 12, 1967. Although claimant returned to work on June 12, 1967, he complained of soreness in his hip and pain in his hack. This trouble was ultimately diagnosed as a herniated lumbosacral disc. The claimant contends that his disc trouble is causally related to his industrial accident.
The Judge of Industrial Claims accepted Dr. Taylor’s opinion that claimant’s protruded lumbar disc is causally related to his industrial accident. The Judge stated that based on all the evidence, including the lay testimony, this opinion comports with logic and reason.
Upon review, the Full Commission, with one member dissenting, reversed the order of the Judge. They opinioned that the order was not based on competent and substantial evidence which accords with logic and reason with respect to the Judge’s finding of causal relationship. The Commission felt that Dr. Taylor’s opinion relating to the causal relationship is based on a false and an incomplete history as given to him by the claimant. The dissenting Commission member is of the opinion that the findings of the Judge are supported by competent substantial evidence.
Dr. Taylor, an orthopedic surgeon, first saw the claimant on August 31, 1967. He obtained a history that the claimant on May 12, 1967, fell and broke several ribs, injured his back and suffered a fractured pelvis. Dr. Taylor stated that the claimant informed him that this was the diagnosis made by Dr. Faircloth. However, Dr. Faircloth did not diagnose anything other than a fractured rib. Assuming this erroneous history to be the basis for Dr. Taylor’s opinion as to causal relationship, the reversal by the Full Commission seems correct. However, the claimant’s true history was later made clear to Dr. Taylor and he still opinioned that there was a causal relationship between claimant’s disc disease and the industrial accident.
The Judge had the opportunity to hear the lay testimony in the case and he found that this evidence supported Dr. Taylor’s opinion. It is beyond the province of the Full Commission to substitute their opinion for that of the Judge when the Judge’s order is based upon competent substantial evidence. Wiedman v. Daryl Products Corporation, 127 So.2d 448 (Fla. 1961).
We find that there was competent substantial evidence to support the Judge’s findings and the Full Commission committed error in reversing him. U. S. Casualty Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 55 So.2d 741 (Fla.1951).
*688The order of the Full Commission is quashed and the cause is remanded with directions to reinstate the compensation order of the Judge of Industrial Claims.
Attorney’s fees in the amount of $350.00 are awarded to petitioner’s attorney.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW and CARLTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- US Cas. Co. v. Md. Cas. Co., 55 So.2d 741 (Fla. 1951)
- Wiedman v. Daryl Prods. Corp., 127 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1961)