ORVILLE M. MARTIN, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
CORAL SEA PHILLIPS 66, GREAT CENTRAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AND FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS 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 reversed an Industrial Relations Commission decision that had overturned a Judge of Industrial Claims' workers' compensation order. The court held that the judge's findings regarding the claimant's maximum medical improvement date and permanent partial disability were supported by competent substantial evidence and should not have been substituted with the Commission's judgment.
The court held that the Judge of Industrial Claims' findings of fact were supported by competent substantial evidence and accorded with logic and reason, and that the Industrial Relations Commission erred in substituting its judgment for that of the trial judge. The court reinstated the original order finding maximum medical improvement on October 6, 1968, and 25 percent permanent partial disability.
[1] A reviewing body errs when it substitutes its judgment for that of the fact-finder regarding the date of maximum medical improvement, provided the fact-finder's determina…
[2] A finding of permanent partial disability must be supported by sufficient findings of fact that demonstrate a diminution of wage-earning capacity.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The termination of the date of maximum medical improvement is often a difficult question of fact to be resolved by the Judge of Industrial Claims. The evidence relied upon by the Judge of Industrial Claims supported his finding.”
Establishes that determination of maximum medical improvement is a factual question within the trial judge's authority and that the evidence here was sufficient.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn automobile mechanic was injured in 1965 when a car under which he was working fell off jackstands and struck him across his shoulders and hips. 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 Partial Disability cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review by petition for writ of certiorari, an order of the Industrial Relations Commission, which reversed the order of the Judge of Industrial Claims.
Claimant, an automobile mechanic, was injured in 1965 when a car under which he was working fell off the jackstands and hit him across his shoulders and hips. The Judge of Industrial Claims entered an order on February 13, 1970, finding that claimant reached maximum medical improvement October 6, 1968, and sustained 25 per cent partial disability.
Upon review, the Industrial Relations Commission reversed the order of the Judge of Industrial Claims and remanded the cause for further hearings, finding that there was not competent substantial evidence to establish the exact date of maximum medical improvement, and that there was not sufficient findings of fact to support a 25 per cent permanent partial disability of the body as a whole based on a diminution of wage-earning capacity.
The termination of the date of maximum medical improvement is often a difficult question of fact to be resolved by the Judge of Industrial Claims. The evidence relied upon by the Judge of Industrial Claims supported his finding. Corral v. McCrory Corporation, 228 So.2d 900 (Fla.1969). The testimony in the instant case is as precise as to the maximum improvement date as that approved by this Court in Hermansen v. Webster Outdoor Advertising Co., 230 So.2d 145 (Fla.1970).
The Industrial Relations Commission erroneously substituted its judgment for that of the Judge of Industrial Claims.
Upon consideration of the record and briefs, it appears, that the findings of fact by the Judge of Industrial Claims are supported by competent substantial evidence, which accords with logic and reason, and the order is in accord with the essential requirements of the law.
The order of November 10, 1970, entered by the Industrial Relations Commission, is reversed, and the order of the Judge of In*466dustrial Claims, entered February 13, 1970, is reinstated.
The petition for attorneys’ fees filed by petitioner is granted in the amount of $500.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Corral v. McCRORY Corp., 228 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 1969)
- Hermansen v. Webster Outdoor Advertising Co., 230 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1969)