CHARLANA DAVIS, PETITIONER,
v.
BERT FRIEDMAN COURT REPORTING SERVICE AND MIDLAND INSURANCE COMPANY, 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 order of the Full Commission reversing the Judge of Industrial Claims is quashed because the Judge's award was supported by competent substantial evidence and controlling precedent.
The Judge of Industrial Claims awarded compensation benefits, finding the claimant was on a dual purpose mission when injured. The Full Commission rev…
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 Claim For Compensation Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the order of the Industrial Relations Commission reversing the order of the Judge of Industrial Claims. The Judge of Industrial Claims awarded compensation benefits, finding that at the time of claimant’s accident she was on a concurrent or dual purpose mission.
The Full Commission in its order reversing the order of the Judge of Industrial Claims, relied on Marks’ Dependents v. Gray, 215 N.Y. 90, 167 N.E. 181 (1929). The Marks decision was rejected in Cook v. Highway Casualty Co., 82 So.2d 679 (Fla.1955), as inconsistent with the remedial purposes of Florida’s Workmen Compensation Act.
After argument and upon consideration of the record and briefs, we find that the Order of the Judge of Industrial Claims is supported by competent substantial evidence and is in accord with the decision of this Court in Cook v. Highway Casualty Co., supra.
Accordingly, certiorari is granted, the Order of the Full Commission is quashed and the cause remanded with directions to reinstate the order of the Judge of Industrial Claims.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gulliford v. Nikko Gold Coast Cruises & Zurich Ins. Co., 423 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…able for workmen’s compensation.” Id. at 682. We note that the Cook court specifically indicated that the dominant purpose of the trip was not necessarily required to be for a business purpose. Accord Davis v. Bert Friedman Court Reporting Service, 251 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1971); Krause v. West Lumber Co., 227 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1969). No inquiry need be made as to the relative importance of the trip’s business importance. Levine v. Builders Aluminum Stone Co., 186 So. 2d 26, 28 (Fla.1966). All that need be determin…
Authorities Cited
- Cook v. Hwy. Cas. Co. & Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 82 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1955)