DAVID BRADSHAW, PETITIONER,

v.

MIAMI PROVISION COMPANY ET AL., RESPONDENTS

ERVIN, Justice.

This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to the Industrial Relations Commission.

Claimant sustained a compensable accident on December 18, 1969. By Order dated July 17, 1970, the Judge of Industrial Claims denied the claim for temporary benefits for the reason that claimant was attending school full time; denied the claim for medical care on the ground that there was a company physician, and found claimant suffered no permanent disability as a result of the accident. Application for review by the Full Commission was filed. Due to some mixup in the office of the attorney handling the claim, the notification on costs was misplaced and not seen and, by the time, counsel for claimant checked with the office of the Judge of Industrial Claims and was able to locate the file, the last day for the filing of the insolvency petition had arrived. On that same day, counsel located his client and prepared the insolvency petition based on information obtained from his client and timely filed the petition. The insolvency petition, however, was executed by the attorney rather than by the claimant.

The Judge of Industrial Claims held a hearing and found from the testimony of claimant as to his financial ability that he was able to pay the costs of the record on appeal and, therefore, ordered that the costs be borne by the claimant.

On appeal, the Full Commission affirmed the denial of claimant’s petition for relief of costs of preparation of the transcript on appeal but did so on the ground that Florida Industrial Commission Rule 6(c)* had not been complied with because the petition for insolvency was not signed by claimant personally. The Commission cited its *831previous decision in Wright v. Leewood Aeronautical Service, 3 FCR 430, holding that the provisions of Rule 6 are mandatory and that an affidavit signed by claimant’s attorney does not satisfy the requirements of the Rule. One Commissioner dissented, stating that an affidavit executed by claimant’s attorney on behalf of his client based on information conveyed to the attorney was in compliance with Rule 6 (c).

The Commission’s holding is not in accord with our decision in Sweeney v. Pine Island Citrus Groves, Inc., Fla.1970, 234 So.2d 644. In that case this Court considered the twenty-day period fixed by Rule 6(c) and held that for good cause a Judge of Industrial Claims may exercise his discretion in granting or denying an extension of time for filing a verified petition to be relieved of costs of preparation of a transcript. We rejected the Commission’s view that Rule 6 is mandatory and held:

“Both the Judge of Industrial Claims and the Full Commission erred in holding that this rule was mandatory. This and other rules of the Commission should be observed in the interest of expediting the speedy determination of these administrative proceedings. Such rules, however, are not mandatory. For good cause the Judge of Industrial Claims may, on application of the employer or employee, exercise his judicial discretion in granting or denying such relief. Ordinarily the exercise of such discretion will not be disturbed on review, except on a clear showing of an abuse of power or an arbitrary exercise of power.” Sweeney v. Pine Island Citrus Groves, Inc., supra, at 645.

Because of the special circumstances here appearing, the Judge of Industrial Claims did not abuse her discretion in considering claimant’s insolvency petition on the merits even though it was signed by his attorney rather than by the claimant as required by Florida Industrial Commission Rule 6(c). It is clear this deviation from the Rule’s requirements did no harm. The affidavit was not determinative of the issue of insolvency; it merely served as a predicate for a hearing upon claimant’s financial ability to pay costs. The Judge based her conclusions on the claimant’s testimony at two hearings.

That portion of the Industrial Relations Commission’s Order holding the Petition for Insolvency could not be considered by the Judge of Industrial Claims because it was not executed in accordance with Rule 6, therefore, is quashed. We affirm, however, the Full Commission’s Order affirming the Order of the Judge of Industrial Claims. We are in agreement with her conclusion that the claimant was able to pay the costs of his record on appeal.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, ADKINS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.

ROBERTS, C. J., dissents and agrees with BOYD, J.

BOYD, Justice

(dissenting in part, concurring in part):

The requirements of Rule 6(c), although not mandatory, should not be dispensed with without a showing of good cause. The requirement that a claimant execute a verified petition attesting his inability to pay the costs of the transcript is not a *832mere formality. The sanctions of the law for false swearing and perjury, apply to claimant’s personally executed petition.1 The affidavit of claimant’s attorney, based on information supplied by claimant, should not be accepted as sufficient in the absence of compelling circumstances. An obvious example allowing execution by someone other than the claimant would be physical incapacity on the part of the claimant during the requisite time. Even here, a request for extension of time for claimant to recover sufficiently to sign is preferable to the acceptance of a petition executed by someone other than claimant.

In the instant case, the following testimony, regarding claimant’s failure to sign the affidavit, appears in the record:

“Q Why was it that you could not sign an affidavit in your case and ask to be relieved of the costs?

“Claimant’s Attorney: Judge, I think I explained that.

“The Judge: We will let the claimant explain. It is supposedly his affidavit.

“Claimant: I left it in the hands of my lawyer. I gave him all the information.

“Q Why did you not sign an affidavit of your own?

“Claimant’s Attorney: Because it was given to me. I received the information on the last day for filing. The only alternative I have had was to present it with the information furnished me by Mr. Bradshaw.”

The notice of costs was sent by certified mail and received in the office of claimant’s attorney on July 29, 1970, but through oversight was not seen by claimant’s attorney until August 18, 1970, and the petition signed by the attorney was filed on that day.

If the foregoing circumstances, amounting to negligent oversight, justify failure to comply with the Rules, then no petition under Rule 6(c) need henceforth be executed under oath by a claimant. The majority decision effectively emasculates the Rule.

I would affirm the order of the Full Commission except for its holding that Rule 6(c) is mandatory.