RUTH OPLE STRAEHLA, PETITIONER,
v.
BENDIX-WE-LAUNDER-RITE, AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, AND FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a workers' compensation denial because the Deputy Commissioner failed to make findings of fact as required by statute. The Court held that without proper findings of fact, an order denying compensation is legally deficient and must be remanded for reconsideration.
An order denying workers' compensation benefits is invalid and contrary to law when the Deputy Commissioner fails to make findings of fact as required by Section 440.25(3)(c), F.S.1951. The case must be remanded to the Deputy Commissioner to enter proper findings of fact supporting the decision.
“The failure of the Deputy Commissioner to make findings of fact as required by Section 440.25(3) (c), F.S.1951, F.S.A., was fatal to the order denying compensation.”
Establishes that failure to make findings of fact is a fatal defect in a compensation denial order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant Straehla received workers' compensation and medical treatment for temporary total disability from a back and leg injury sustained during empl…
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 Findings Of Fact Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
DREW, Chief Justice.
Claimant was paid compensation and furnished medical treatment for temporary total disability by reason of injuries to her back and leg rising out of and in the course of her employment. After the carrier ceased payments, claimant filed a claim for further compensation and medical treatment. Following three hearings before the Deputy Commissioner, developing a record of about 130 pages, he entered an order that the “claim for further compensation and medical benefits be and the same is hereby denied.” This order was affirmed by the full commission on January 20, 1955.
In the order denying the claim the Deputy Commissioner made no findings of fact. The order simply recited that the commissioner had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter and that the “claimant is not entitled to further compensation or medical treatment.”
The failure of the Deputy Commissioner to make findings of fact as required by Section 440.25(3) (c), F.S.1951, F.S.A., was fatal to the order denying compensation. Hardy v. City of Tarpon Springs, Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 503. In that case we explored the necessity for adherence to the statutory duty of making of findings of fact by the Deputy Commissioner and we set out specifically what is required in that respect. We held that the failure of the Deputy Commissioner to base the result upon proper findings of fact resulted in the award being contrary to law. The order of the full commission was vacated with directions for entry of an order remanding the cause to the Deputy Commissioner for his further consideration in the light of the views expressed in the opinion filed in that case. For the reasons stated there this cause must be remanded for a like purpose. See also Ball v. Mann, Fla.1954, 75 So. 2d 758. Certiorari is granted and the order of the full commission dated January 20, 1955, is vacated with directions to enter an order setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated May 17, 1954, and remanding the cause to the Deputy Commissioner for further proceedings in accordance with these views.
TERRELL, THOMAS, SEBRING, HOBSON and THORNAL, JJ., concur. ROBERTS, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Andrews v. Strecker Body Builders, Inc., 92 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1957)…oper evidence presented before him. Inadequate findings or findings unsupported by competent substantial evidence will not be permitted to stand. Hardy v. City of Tarpon Springs, Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 503; Straehla v. Bendix-We-Launder-Rite, Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 657. This does not mean that the deputy is required to recite the evidence in detail. However, his order should show that he has considered all of it. Conversely the order is insufficient if it shows on its face that he has considered only a limited seg…
-
Caranci v. Miami Glass & Eng'g Co., 99 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)…in the record. The claimant was the sole witness. Findings wholly inadequate or not supported by the evidence will not be permitted to stand. See Hardy v. City of Tarpon Springs, Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 503; Straehla v. Bendix-We-Launder-Rite, Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 657; Andrews v. Strecker Body Builders, Fla.1957, 92 So. 2d 521. We are of the opinion that the Full Commission did not comply with the essential [*255] requirements of law when it found that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was supported by compet…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Iowa Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. v. The Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 151 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 1963)…the reviewing authorities is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the findings of fact and whether the law has been properly applied thereto by the Deputy Commissioner.” This court in Straehle v. Bendix-We-Launder-Rite, Fla., 81 So. 2d 657, held that an order under 440.-25(3) (c) making no findings of fact was fatally defective. To the same effect are the following: Andrews v. Strecker Body Builders, Inc., Fla., 92 So. 2d 521; Fischer v. John W. Thomson & Son, Inc., Fla., 92 So. 2d 52…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ball v. Mann, 75 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1954)
- Hampton Hardy v. City OF Tarpon Springs, 81 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1955)