Crime Control, Inc. v. Burston, 87-366
| Decision Date | 10 March 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-366,87-366 |
| Citation | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 631,522 So.2d 929 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 631 CRIME CONTROL, INC. and American States Insurance Companies, Appellants, v. Frank BURSTON and the Department of Labor & Employment Security, Division of Workers' Compensation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Errol S. Cornell, Miami, for appellants.
L. Anton Rebalko, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellees.
This is an appeal from an order awarding wage loss and rehabilitation benefits. We affirm the order as modified.
The appellants, employer and carrier, present seven issues for our consideration. With respect to six of the seven issues presented, appellants' arguments consist in whole or in part of assertions that the order should be reversed because it includes insufficient findings of fact to support the ultimate conclusions reached and includes findings on disputed issues of fact without addressing or resolving the conflicts in the evidence bearing on the disputed issues. Appellants also argue that certain findings of fact made in the order are unsupported by the evidence.
We agree that certain findings made in the order are unsupported by any competent substantial evidence, and that the order is deficient in several respects. However, we decline to reverse the order because we find, upon review of the record, that a clear preponderance of the evidence presented supports the deputy commissioner's (deputy) decision to award the benefits, and that the erroneous findings of fact included in the order are immaterial and unnecessary to the decision to award benefits.
In a case such as this one, where the claimant's entitlement to the benefits awarded is reasonably clear so that there is no likelihood that the outcome of the case would change upon remand, we will ordinarily eschew action which will have the effect of penalizing the claimant because of deficiencies in the order. We hasten to add that orders such as the one sub judice can and will be reversed in closer cases, as well as in cases where it appears that the findings of fact which are erroneous or are of questionable validity are not superfluous but are material to the decision reached.
We affirm the decretal portion of the order on appeal, but modify the findings of fact made in paragraphs five through eight of the "findings" portion of the order. Paragraph five is stricken in its entirety, as is the parenthetical clause contained in paragraph six. The first sentence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carson v. Gaineswood Condominiums, 87-1236
...erred in rejecting the claimant's testimony without an explanation of how her credibility was tarnished; and Crime Control, Inc. v. Burston, 522 So.2d 929, 930 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), cautioning that orders will be reversed "in cases where it appears that the findings of fact which are erroneo......
-
Delgado v. Blanco & Sons Catering, 91-1850
...where such erroneous findings of fact included in the order are immaterial and unnecessary to the decision. Crime Control, Inc. v. Burston, 522 So.2d 929 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).2 All medical records in this hearing, including this particular record from Tampa General, were placed in evidence b......
-
Trujillo v. Southern Wine & Spirits, BR-230
...on appeal. 1 Thus, the deputy commissioner erred in relying on the deposition in reaching his decision. Cf. Crime Control, Inc. v. Burston, 522 So.2d 929 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (mere reference in an order to exhibit proffered by claimant but not admitted into evidence not reversible error wher......
-
Fritz v. Courtyard By Marriott
...Carballo v. Warren Mfg. Co., 407 So.2d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), review denied, 415 So.2d 1362 (Fla.1982). Cf. Crime Control, Inc. v. Burston, 522 So.2d 929 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (court declined to reverse order awarding benefits even though some findings were not supported by CSE, because err......