Grillo v. Big 'B' Ranch
| Citation | 328 So.2d 429 |
| Decision Date | 25 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 46854,46854 |
| Parties | Rosa Ortega GRILLO, Petitioner, v. BIG 'B' RANCH et al., Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Larry Klein, Cone, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Kirk Sullivan, Adams, Sullivan & Coogler, and Marjorie D. Gadarian, Jones, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, for respondents.
Pursuant to Article V, § 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution, we have before us a workmen's compensation case involving the special employer doctrine explained in Berrier v. Associated Indemnity Co., 142 Fla. 351, 196 So. 188 (1940) and Stuyvesant Corp. v. Waterhouse, 74 So.2d 554 (Fla.1954). The respondent's manager admitted in a deposition introduced in evidence that he had the power to discharge the petitioner from his employment, but attempted in his oral testimony to explain away this admission. The Judge of Industrial Claims chose to believe the admission. However, the Industrial Relations Commission rejected this choice and reversed the order of the Judge.
It is clear that the Commission is not permitted to be a trier of fact in proceedings before it. Adams v. Wagner, 129 So.2d 129 (Fla.1961). By usurping the role of the Judge in making a determination of credibility the Commission ignored the essential requirements of law. Therefore the writ of certiorari is granted, the order of the Commission is quashed and this case is remanded with instructions to reinstate the order of the Judge of Industrial Claims.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chavarria v. Selugal Clothing, Inc.
...stated by Judge Wentworth: It is the deputy's function to determine credibility and resolve conflicts in the evidence, Grillo v. Big "B" Ranch, 328 So.2d 429 (Fla.1976), and he may accept the testimony of one physician over that of several others, Crowell v. Messana, 180 So.2d 329 (Fla.1965......
-
Carson v. Gaineswood Condominiums, 87-1236
...288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Furthermore, while it is the deputy's prerogative to determine the credibility of witnesses, Grillo v. Big "B" Ranch, 328 So.2d 429 (Fla.1976), the deputy is not required to accept the testimony of a witness merely because that witness is competent to testify on a g......
-
Smith v. Crane Cams, Inc., AF-1
...In such a situation, the deputy has the duty to unravel this paradoxical conflict in Dr. Horowitz's testimony. See Grillo v. Big "B" Ranch, 328 So.2d 429 (Fla. 1976). There is no dearth of evidence to suggest that the rate of contracting either of these conditions is not substantially highe......
-
Holiday Foliage v. Anderson
...Where the medical testimony and evidence is conflicting and paradoxical, it is the JCC's duty to resolve the conflict. Grillo v. Big "B" Ranch, 328 So.2d 429 (Fla.1976). In this regard, the JCC should consider and evaluate both lay and medical evidence, and in a proper case, may give greate......