Florida Cartage Co. v. Tyler
| Decision Date | 31 October 1956 |
| Parties | FLORIDA CARTAGE COMPANY and Maryland Casualty Company, Petitioners, v. Charles TYLER and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Dixon, DeJarnette, Bradford & Williams, Miami, for petitioners.
Nichols, Gaither, Green, Frates & Beckham, Dudley Burton, Miami, Truett & Watkins, Burnis T. Coleman and Rodney Durrance, Tallahassee, for respondents.
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court on petition for writ of certiorari upon the transcript of record and briefs to review the order of the Florida Industrial Commission in said cause, bearing date April 27, 1956, and the petitioner having failed to show that the essential requirements of law have been violated, it is ordered that said petition be and the same is hereby denied.
I concur in the judgment in this case denying certiorari, the effect of which is to affirm the findings and conclusions of the deputy commissioner and the full commission. In view of the nature of the question involved, however, we should point out that the deputy commissioner, in requiring the compensation carrier to furnish remedial treatment for the employee at Mayo Clinic, did so on the basis of the peculiar factual situation developed over a period of time following the accident which confronted him in this particular case. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of his order of December 30, 1955, are:
'4. That the claimant has not reached maximum medical improvement, and I find it for the best medical interest of the claimant that he be given remedial attention at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
'5. In making the above finding of further remedial treatment at Mayo Clinic, I have taken into consideration the medical evidence of the attending orthopedic and this man's condition is serious; that he has heretofore undergone a myelogram and removal of a disc and a subsequent myelogram indicating further surgery is indicated with the probably necessity of a laminectomy and fusion; that shortly after the removal of the disc in May, 1955, claimant lost control of his left arm and the strength of his left leg requiring him to be on crutches and that the claimant has recently lost partial control of his urinary organs; that the attending orthopedic is not opposed to the claimant going to Mayo Clinic for treatment; that because of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McAree v. Gerber Products Co.
...Accord, Howell v. Cottage-Ette Mfg. Co., 186 So.2d 1 (Fla.1966), adopting as law the concurring opinion in Florida, Cartage Co. v. Tyler, 90 So.2d 291 (Fla.1956); Commonwealth of Kentucky, Dept. of Hwys. v. Porter, 469 S.W.2d 350 (Ky.1971); Ranellucci v. N.Y. Central RR, 306 N.Y. 896, 119 N......
-
Lindsey v. J.R. & R. Enterprises
...were available in claimant's home state of Tennessee. As authority for this point, the employer/carrier relied upon Florida Cartage Co. v. Tyler, 90 So.2d 291 (Fla.1956), Layne-Western Co. v. Cox, 497 So.2d 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), Herman J. Heidrich & Sons v. Floyd, 406 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 1s......
-
Howell v. Cottage-Ette Mfg. Co.
...state treatment for the Petitioner. The guide lines for the ordering of such treatment were clearly established in Fla. Cartage Co. v. Tyler, 90 So.2d 291 (Fla.1956) wherein this court affirmed an order of the Deputy Commissioner providing for payment of costs incident to sending an employe......
-
Davis v. Conger Life Ins. Co., 39961
...that said petition be and the same is hereby denied. See Howell v. Cottage-Ette Mfg. Co., 186 So.2d 1 (Fla.1966); Florida Cartage Company v. Tyler, 90 So.2d 291 (Fla.1956). ROBERTS, C.J., and ERVIN, CARLTON and DEKLE, JJ., DREW, J. (Retired), concurs specially with opinion. DREW, Justice, R......