GLASS
v.
G. A. MILLER CO., INC.
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.
Glass appeals a workers' compensation denial by the Deputy Commissioner, affirmed by the Full Commission and Circuit Court. The Florida Supreme Court reverses, holding that under the newly decided Gray standard, the claimant was injured by accident arising out of employment, and remands for reconsideration of compensation in light of that standard.
The court held that Glass was injured by accident within the meaning of the law as established in Gray v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co., and therefore his denial of compensation was improper. The case is remanded to determine the appropriate compensation in light of the Gray standard and evidence regarding the source of his permanent partial disability.
“claimant was not injured by accident arising out of ánd in the course of his- employment, within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law, F.S.A. § 440.01 et seq.”
The grounds on which the Deputy Commissioner initially denied compensation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGlass was injured in an accident that occurred during the course of his employment. At the time of the initial decisions, the Deputy Commissioner and …
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 Workmen'S Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
.ROBERTS, Chief Justice.
This is an appeal in a workman’s compensation case in which the Deputy Commissioner denied compensation on the ground that “claimant was not injured by accident arising out of ánd in the course of his-employment, within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, F.S.A. § 440.01 et seq., as construed by the cases of LeViness v. Mauer [Fla.], 53 So. 2d 11.3, McNeill v. Thompson [Fla.], 53 So. 2d 868 * * His finding was affirmed by the Full Commission on appeal, and again by the Circuit Court.
While it must be held that the' appellant was, in fact, injured “by accident” within the rule of Gray v. Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co., opinion filed November 14, 1952, which opinion was adhered to on rehearing granted, opinion filed April 24, 1953, Fla., 64 So. 2d 650, it appears that the appellant has been compensated for at least some portion of this particular injury and, perhaps, for all of such injury in the light of evidence that his permanent partial disability is not attributable in any way to the injury of which he is here complaining.
In fairness to the Deputy Commissioner and the appellate tribunals, let it be said that at the time of their respective decisions in this case, they did not have the benefit of our final decision in the Gray case, supra, which, as noted, was pending on rehearing granted until April’ 24, 1953. Under the circumstances, we think the ends of justice will be best served by remanding the cause to the Deputy Commissioner, with directions to re-evaluate the evidence in the light of the decision in the Gray case and to make such changes, if any, in his award as in his judgment may seem -proper. ...
Remanded with directions.
TERRELL,- SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gray v. Emp'rs Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 64 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1952)
- McNeill v. Thompson, 53 So.2d 868 (Fla. 1951)