ROGERS BROWN, PETITIONER,
v.
SOUTHERN CHEMICALS, INC., AND 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.
Florida Supreme Court reviewed whether the Industrial Relations Commission properly reversed a workers' compensation award based on alleged inadequate notice of amended dates of injury. The Court held that the employer received adequate notice and acquiesced to the amendment, requiring reinstatement of the award.
No. The employer/carrier had actual notice of the correct dates of injury through the two documented accidents and the reports they themselves produced at hearing. Additionally, even absent such notice, the employer/carrier explicitly acquiesced to the amendment when offered a continuance but declined it, stating the evidence would be the same.
[1] A claimant's dates of injury may be amended during a hearing if the employer/carrier had actual notice of the claim and the correct dates of injury.
[2] An employer/carrier's refusal of a continuance offered after an amendment to a claim constitutes acquiescence to the amendment.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 record demonstrates that the employer/carrier knew of only two accidents suffered by petitioner and were aware of the correct dates. It is also obvious from the record that petitioner could not remember the exact dates, that his counsel had attempted to get copies of reports reflecting the correct dates but was unable to do so, and that these dates were not ascertained until, at the hearing, the reports were produced by the employer/carrier.”
Establishes the employer/carrier had actual notice of the correct injury dates through their own documents and knowledge of the accidents.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Brown sustained compensable injuries in January and May 1970. His original claim alleged injuries in February and March 1970. At the final …
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 Continuance cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to the Department of Commerce, Industrial Relations Commission, to review the Commission’s reversal of a compensation award.
*530Petitioner sustained compensable injuries in January and May of 1970. His original claim, however, alleged that the injuries occurred in February and March of that year. At the final hearing on the claim, the Judge of Industrial Claims allowed the dates alleged to be amended. Subsequently, he awarded petitioner permanent partial disability and other benefits.
The Industrial Relations Commission reversed the award on the ground that the employer/carrier “did not receive adequate notice of the amended claim to allow proper preparation of a defense against it.” The Commission also held that the record did not support any acquiescence to the amendment by the employer/carrier. We cannot agree with these conclusions.
The record demonstrates that the employer/carrier knew of only two accidents suffered by petitioner and were aware of the correct dates. It is also obvious from the record that petitioner could not remember the exact dates, that his counsel had attempted to get copies of reports reflecting the correct dates but was unable to do so, and that these dates were not ascertained until, at the hearing, the reports were produced by the employer/carrier. Under these circumstances, it is unquestionable that the employer/carrier did have notice of the actual claim against them.
Even if notice were nor so apparent, we would find that respondents acquiesced to the amendment. When the Judge allowed the dates to be amended, he also proposed a continuance. Counsel for respondents replied:
“If Your Honor please, if the Judge would allow an amendment of the claim instanter to reflect the proper dates of accident, then I would see no reason to continue that as if the case were not dismissed on the basis of improper action. Uh, then I would have no objection to proceeding because the evidence will be the same.”
If allowing the amendment presented a new and different claim which the employer/carrier were unprepared to defend against, as they now contend it did, they were offered additional time to prepare and they refused it. The compensation award, therefore, should not have been reversed on this basis under these circumstances.
This cause is remanded to the Industrial Relations Commission with directions to enter a new order consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, ERVIN, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Herb's Exxon & Peninsular Fire Ins. Co. v. Whatmough, 487 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…ng a workers’ compensation claim would also permit the parties to try by consent an issue not explicitly alleged in a claim so long as all parties were placed on fair notice of the issue. Such, in fact, happened in Brown v. Southern Chemicals, Inc., 274 So. 2d 529 (Fla.1973), wherein a workers’ compensation claim alleging an incorrect date of injury was allowed to be corrected at the time of the hearing based upon consent of the parties. As we recognized in A.B. Taft & Sons v. Clark, at 433: (T)he Workmen’s…