Herndon v. City of Miami
| Decision Date | 09 July 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 38591,38591 |
| Citation | 224 So.2d 681 |
| Parties | Martin C. HERNDON, Petitioner, v. CITY OF MIAMI and the Full Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Edward Schroll, Miami, for petitioner.
Alan H. Rothstein, City Atty., and Robert F. Clark, Asst. City Atty., Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.
By petition for certiorari, we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission reversing an order of the Judge of Industrial Claims.
On April 20, 1963, the claimant, while employed as a policeman by the City of Miami, sustained injuries to his low back for which he was awarded compensation for a 35% Permanent partial disability of the body as a whole. As a result of another compensable accident on August 5, 1964, he was granted permanent total disability retirement by the City. On February 15, 1967, the City stipulated with the claimant that he was permanently totally disabled and was entitled to compensation at the maximum rate from June 11, 1966 during the continuance of said disability. The Judge approved this stipulation on February 23, 1967.
On April 2, 1968, the Judge denied claimant's request for a lump sum payment of $29,000.00. Subsequently, claimant applied for an advance payment of 13 years compensation ($22,250.00) in order to purchase real estate located in Fort Pierce, Florida. The claimant submitted a financial plan and testified that said purchase was sound and reasonable. The Rehabilitation Department of the Florida Industrial Commission investigated the claimant's application and reported favorably. After reviewing all the evidence presented relative to the request for advance payment and in particular the reduction in amount thereof, the Judge found that the advance payment of $22,250.00 would be to the best interest of the claimant and that said advance payment would not materially prejudice the rights of the employer and that it is reasonable under the circumstances of the case.
Upon review the Full Commission reversed holding that the claimant did not produce enough tangible evidence that enabled the Full Commission to determine the financial feasibility of the arrangement. The Commission stated that the claimant had the burden to offer evidence of a disinterested or professional appraiser as to the value of the real estate desired to be purchased, together with past earnings and occupancy rate as well as economic conditions in the area. The Full Commission pointed out that the only testimony contained in the record is that of the claimant. They seemed to feel that the interest of the employer was not given due consideration as required by Ch. 440.20(10), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
Rule 16 D of the Rules, Regulations and Instructions adopted by the Florida Industrial Commission provides:
'* * * If the judge of industrial claims finds that such advance payment is for the Best interests of the person entitled to compensation, will not Materially prejudice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C & R Contractors v. Wagner
...circumstances for 18-year-old widow having only a tenth grade education and with an infant daughter to support); Herndon v. City of Miami, 224 So.2d 681 (Fla.1969) (to purchase real We acknowledge that as to need sufficiency the Commission is the body charged with "special knowledge," and t......
-
Codling v. Aztec Well Servicing Co.
...561, 534 P.2d 1060 (1975); Kuehn v. National Farmers Union Property & Cas. Co., 164 Mont. 303, 521 P.2d 921 (1974); Herndon v. City of Miami, 224 So.2d 681 (Fla.1969); Mid-Continent Casualty Company v. Caler, 346 P.2d 177 (Okl.1959); Chatfield v. Industrial Accident Board, 140 Mont. 516, 37......
-
Padilla v. Frito-Lay, Inc., FRITO-LA
...appraiser or business analyst to support plaintiff's expectations of a profitable venture was raised, and dismissed, in Herndon v. City of Miami, 224 So.2d 681 (Fla.1969): There is no mandatory requirement in the workmen's compensation law that the claimant produce expert testimony at a hea......
-
Oliver B. Cannon & Sons, Inc. v. Crosby, BE-467
...materially prejudice the rights of the employer/carrier, and would be reasonable under the circumstances of the case, Herndon v. City of Miami, 224 So.2d 681 (Fla.1969). The issue in this case is whether the lump sum payment is in the claimant's best interests. 1 While we recognize that the......