HI-ACRES, INC., ET AL.
v.
PIERCE ET AL.
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 reversed a circuit court's reversal of the Industrial Commission's affirmance of a deputy commissioner's denial of workers' compensation benefits. The court held that the deputy commissioner's factual findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence and that the circuit court applied the wrong legal standard on appeal.
The Florida Supreme Court held that there was competent, substantial evidence in the record to sustain the deputy commissioner's findings, that the Full Commission's affirmance was correct, and that the circuit court applied the wrong rule of law by simply disagreeing with the factual findings rather than reviewing whether competent, substantial evidence supported those findings.
“There is material difference between being on duty twenty-four hours a day and being subject to call twenty-four hours per day.”
Establishes the legal distinction the deputy commissioner applied in determining whether the employee was actually on duty at the time of death.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA deputy commissioner heard a workers' compensation death case and found the evidence totally failed to show the decedent met his death by accident ar…
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 Arising Out Of And In The Course Of Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
MATHEWS,' Justice.
This was a death case within the jurisdiction of the Florida Industrial Commission. The deputy commissioner found that the evidence totally failed to-show that the decedent met his death by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. There were many conflicts in the testimony-and different inferences could be drawn from the testimony.
In his order the deputy commissioner reviewed the testimony citing the case of Bowen v. Keen, 154 Fla. 161, 17 So. 2d 706, as authority for a statement in the order that had the decedent been on a special mission at the request and direction of his employer and been killed while fulfilling this mission, the claim would have been compensable. He held that the evidence totally failed to show that the employee was on any such mission. He found that the decedent had concluded any mission he may have been on for his employer and that the claim was governed by the case of Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Moore, 143 Fla. 103, 196 So. 495. There is material difference between being on duty twenty-four hours a day and being subject to call twenty-four hours per day. Even though the employee may have been subject to call, after hours, to perform some special mission, he is not on duty unless it is shown that he had been called, after hours, to perform some special duty and had responded to such call.
On appeal for review the full Commission affirmed the.deputy commissioner and held that there-was “competent, substantial , evidence in the record to support the findings of fact heretofore made by the Deputy Commissioner”. • The deputy was affirmed upon the authority of United States Casualty Company v. Maryland Casualty Company, Fla., 55 So. 2d 741.
On appeal to the Circuit Court to review the order of the full Commission the Circuit Court reversed the full Commission and found: “There is no competent substantial evidence to sustain the findings of the Deputy Commissioner.”
It is quite evident that there was competent, substantial evidence in the record to sustain the findings of the deputy commissioner and that the order of the full Commission, affirming the order of the deputy, was correct. The deputy commissioner was a trier of the facts and it was proper for him to reconcile conflicts in the testimony and to draw inferences therefrom. It appears that the Circuit Judge simply disagreed with the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the deputy commissioner and, in so doing, applied the wrong rule of law applicable to such cases.
Reversed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eady v. Medical Personnel Pool, 377 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1979)…Fla.1971), Sweat v. Allen, 145 Fla. 733, 200 So. 348 (1941). But an employee who is subject to call or is on call is not considered to be on duty at all times. Alan Wright Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Simpson, 93 So. 2d 375 (Fla.1957); Hi-Acres v. Pierce, 73 So. 2d 49 (Fla.1954). Strictly speaking then, there is no on-call exemption because compensation is based not on the employee’s on-call status but on the circumstance that at the time of injury he was on a special errand in response to a call from his employ…
-
Lindsey v. Willis, 101 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)…rs Casualty Co., La.App., 43 So. 2d 630. . Supra, Note 6. . 156 Fla. 539, 23 So. 2d 716. . See Lawrence v. Industrial Commission, 391 Ill. 80, 62 N.E. 2d 686. . Hicks v. Kemp, Fla.1955, 79 So. 2d 696, 699. . Hi-Acres, Inc., v. Pierce, Fla.1954, 73 So. 2d 49. . United States Casualty Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., Fla., supra, Note 5. . Steinfeldt-Thompson Co. v. Trotter, Fla.1957. 95 So. 2d 262; Jones v. Florida Power Corp., supra, Note 4.…
-
Alan Wright Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Simpson, 93 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1957)…n a mission purely personal to himself and wife and had no connection whatever with his employment; it did not flow from nor was it in any way incident to his employment.” 143 Fla. 103, 105, 196 So. 495, 496. In Hi-Acres, Inc., v. Pierce, Fla.1954, 73 So. 2d 49 the court made the statement: “There is material difference between being on duty twenty-four hours a day and being subject to call twenty-four hours per [*377] day. Even though the employee may have heen subject to call, after hours, to perform som…
Authorities Cited
- US Cas. Co. v. Md. Cas. Co., 55 So.2d 741 (Fla. 1951)
- The Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y. & Lee Motors of Fort Myers, Inc. v. Mrs. Charles S. Moore, Jr., 143 Fla. 103 (Fla. 1940)
- MRS. Berta M. Bowen v. Keen, 154 Fla. 161 (Fla. 1944)