Federal Elec. Corp. v. Best, 42782

• Decision Date: 14 March 1973
• Docket Number: No. 42782,42782
• Citation: 274 So.2d 886
• Parties: FEDERAL ELECTRIC CORPORATION and Employers Insurance of Wausau, Petitioners, v. William G. BEST (Deceased), Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 886

274 So.2d 886

FEDERAL ELECTRIC CORPORATION and Employers Insurance of Wausau, Petitioners, v. William G. BEST (Deceased), Respondent.

No. 42782.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 14, 1973.

E. J. Gierach, of Gierach & Ewald, Orlando, for petitioners.

Mike Krasny, of Storms, Pappas & Krasny, Melbourne, and Kenneth H. Hart, Jr., Florida Industrial Relations Commission, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

We consider here a petition for writ of certiorari to review an order of the Industrial Relations Commission.

The deceased, William G. Best, was standing in his place of employment when he gasped, fell, and fractured his skull. Because of his head injuries, he underwent a craniotomy. As a result of his inactive, semi-conscious semi-comatose condition following the accident and surgery, he developed double pneumonia from which he died. His widow filed a claim for Workmen's Compensation benefits.

The Judge of Industrial Claims found:

'. . . the claimant was standing perfectly still at the time of the onset of this fall, did not slip or trip and fall, was not engaged in anything that created stress or physical exertion, and was not subjected to any unusual conditions. Therefore, I find that decedent employee fell and resulting injuries from which he died were the result of the convulsive or grand mal-type seizure that he suffered immediately prior to the fall, and had absolutely no relation to his work.'

The claimant sought review before the Industrial Relations Commission. The employer/carrier filed a motion to quash the claimant's brief and dismiss the application for review because her brief and transcript were untimely filed. The IRC said that it was conceded at oral argument that the moving party was not prejudiced by the late filing, therefore the motions were denied, citing Sweeney v. Pine Island Citrus Groves, Inc., Fla.1970, 234 So.2d 644. The Commission then reversed the Judge of Industrial Claims' order denying benefits and remanded the cause, saying:

'In reviewing the record before us it is apparent that a conflict existed in the testimony of the two persons present at the time of the seizure and resulting injury. On page three of his Order the Judge recognized this conflict, but failed to resolve it. In disposing of a claim for compensation, a Judge should resolve all conflicts in the evidence upon material matters as required by the case of Andrews v. C. B. S. Division, Maule Industries, 118 So.2d 206 (Fla.1960), and make specific findings of facts sufficient to show clearly the basis for any award. See Ball v. Mann, 75 So.2d 758 (Fla.1954).

'The final point that has been left unresolved in the Order of the Judge of Industrial Claims is whether the desk upon which the claimant, according to one of the witnesses, struck his head may have been a hazard of his employment. Foxworth v. Florida Industrial Commission, 86 So.2d 147 (Fla.1955).

'A review of the Order does not reveal sufficient findings of fact to resolve the above stated issues, and, thus, we are not able knowledgeably to review the Order.'

Petitioners raise the following issues in their petition for writ of certiorari:

1. Whether the Industrial Relations Commission erred in denying their motion to dismiss Claimant's application for review because she untimely filed her brief and record.

2. Whether the Order of the Judge of Industrial Claims is supported by competent, substantial evidence.

It is Petitioners' contention that under Sweeney IRC rules may be waived only for...