Andrews v. Strecker Body Builders, Inc.
| Decision Date | 06 February 1957 |
| Citation | 92 So.2d 521 |
| Parties | Elmer E. ANDREWS, Petitioner, v. STRECKER BODY BUILDERS, Inc., Inland Empire Insurance Company, and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Allen Clements, Miami, for petitioner.
Arthur W. Primm, Miami, Burnis T. Coleman and Rodney Durrance, Tallahassee, for respondents.
Petitioner Andrews seeks review of an order of the Floridan Industrial Commission affirming an order of a deputy commissioner dismissing his petition for increased Workmen's Compensation benefits.
The determining question is the sufficiency of the findings of the deputy commissioner to support his order.
Andrews, while an employee of respondent, Strecker Body Builders, Inc., received an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The injury necessitated the amputation of the index finger of the right hand and the supporting metacarpal bone. The employee was paid compensation for temporary total disability and thereafter for a period of time on the basis of twenty-five per cent permanent partial disability of the hand as a whole. He subsequently petitioned for increased benefits. At the hearing on this petition before the deputy commissioner, the employee exhibited his disabled hand to the deputy commissioner himself. The record reflects that the deputy commissioner actually experimented to determine the stability of the grip in the man's hand and personally examined the hand. The employee, a right-handed carpenter, testified in detail as the disabling effect of the injury. He said he had lost at least fifty per cent of the use of his hand. Two doctors also testified. The order of the deputy makes reference to no evidence whatever except the expert medical testimony. To that end it recites that one doctor rated the claimant with a twenty-five per cent permanent partial disability and the other doctor rated the disability at thirty-five per cent. After reciting consideration of these two medical opinions only, the order of the deputy commissioner then stated 'based upon the above stated facts [the expert opinions], it is the finding of the undersigned Deputy Commissioner * * * that claimant has failed to show any degree of disability greater than the 25% permanent partial disability' previously allowed.
It is the contention of the petitioner that the finding of the deputy is inadequate to meet the requirements of the Workmen's Compensation Act for the simple reason that he obviously based his finding entirely on the testimony of the medical experts. The petitioner contends that the deputy commissioner should have considered all of the evidence including the testimony of the petitioner himself as to the extent of his disability as well as the deputy's own examination of the injured hand.
We are not informed as to the position of the respondents for the reason that we have not been favored with a brief. This procedure is not approved. It is not the responsibility of this Court to brief a cause for any of the parties.
Our examination of the record and the briefs of the petitioner lead us to the conclusion that the petitioner's contention is sound.
Section 440.25(3)(c), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., requires a deputy commissioner to include in his order a statement of the findings of fact and other matters pertinent to the questions at issue. When these findings are adequately supported by competent substantial evidence, we have consistently declined to disturb the order of the deputy. United States Casualty Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 741. It is because of the vital importance of the deputy's findings of fact that an order should show that h...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INCORPORATED v. O'KEEFFE
...Parker v. Brinson Construction Company, 78 So.2d 873 (Fla.1955); Cohen v. Sloan, 143 Fla. 609, 197 So. 342 (1940); Andrews v. Strecker Body Builders, 92 So.2d 521 (Fla.1957); Drake v. Norge Division, Borg Warner Corp., 367 Mich. 464, 116 N.W.2d 842, 843-844 (1962); Bourdeaux v. Gilbert Moto......
-
Allman v. Meredith Corp., AT-457
...his own observations and evaluations. See Magic City Bottle & Supply Co. v. Robinson, 116 So.2d 240 (Fla.1959); Andrews v. Strecker Body Builders, Inc., 92 So.2d 521 (Fla.1957); and Star Fruit Co. v. Canady, 32 So.2d 2 (Fla.1947). In Magic City, 116 So.2d at 243, the court This Court has he......
-
Young v. Dreamland Bedding Co.
...loss or loss of use of the member.'3 United States Casualty Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 741; Andrews v. Strecker Body Builders, Fla.1957, 92 So.2d 521.4 '* * * and it follows that the aggravation of disability reasonably attributable to the accident and therefore compen......
-
McCandless v. M.M. Parrish Const., AR-319
...The Supreme Court made this very clear in Magic City Bottle & Supply Co. v. Robinson, 116 So.2d 240 (Fla.1959), Andrews v. Strecker Body Builders, 92 So.2d 521 (Fla.1957), and Star Fruit Co. v. Canady, 32 So.2d 2 (Fla.1947). In Magic City, 116 So.2d at 243, the court This Court has held on ......