Four Branches, Inc. v. Oechsner

• Citation: 73 So.2d 222
• Parties: FOUR BRANCHES, Inc., et al. v. OECHSNER.
• Decision Date: 08 June 1954
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida

Page 222

73 So.2d 222

FOUR BRANCHES, Inc., et al. v. OECHSNER.

Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division B.

June 8, 1954.

Knight, Smith & Underwood, Miami, for appellants.

Victor Levine and Robert H. Heilker, Miami, for appellee.

DREW, Justice.

This is a workmen's compensation case. An elevator operator claims to have sustained an injury in November, 1950 when the elevator she was operating fell into the 'pit' and landed on its buffer springs.

On September 28, 1951, after extensive testimony and personal inspection of the premises, the Deputy Commissioner entered an order dismissing the claim. This order of the Deputy Commissioner was affirmed by the Full Commission but was reversed by the Circuit Court on appeal. Pursuant to the mandate of the Circuit Court the Deputy Commissioner entered a further order on December 14, 1952.

This second order found that when the elevator 'reached the ground floor level it momentarily stopped, and, before the operator, Mrs. Oechsner, could open the door, the elevator slid 15 inches below the ground level and came to rest on the buffer springs, without bouncing and without noticeable injury to anyone. Mrs. Oechsner did not lose her balance or fall against or hit any part of the elevator. 'In a few seconds' Mrs. Oechsner, the operator, had the elevator back to the ground level and the pasenger departed therefrom.' The Deputy Commissioner further found, from the evidence before him as to the alleged personal injuries, that claimant's 'dizzy spells, pain in her head, and the alleged difference in her eye sight since the incident of November, 1950, and sleeplessness, were not caused by the happening referred to.'

On a second review the Full Commission again affirmed the Deputy Commissioner but on a second appeal the Circuit Court entered an order again reversing the order of the Deputy Commissioner and remanding the cause. The propriety of this order of the Circuit Court is before us on review. Material parts of the order are as follows:

'On the first appeal (by order filed April 21, 1952) this Court reversed the order of the Commission, which, in effect, had denied relief to the petitioner on the finding of a Deputy Commissioner that the elevator which she was operating had not been involved in any accident, etc. This Court, in its first order and opinion, concluded that such finding was 'clearly erroneous and contrary to the preponderance of the evidence'.

'Instead of restating in this order the matters which were stated in the prior order to show the decision of this Court as to the factual situation and the directions which were given for further proceedings, attention is called and reference is made to the said order of this Court on the prior appeal. Consideration of whether the injuries or disabilities are compensable through connection and causation by this elevator accident or incident is one of the matters to be determined below. That decision may be made in favor of petitioner or it may be made against her, but the decision should be made with reference to the matter as found and decided in this Court's opinion and order dated April 21, 1952, and not on the original rejected findings of fact of the Deputy Commissioner; and...