Miller v. Brewer Co. of Fla.
| Decision Date | 29 June 1960 |
| Citation | 122 So.2d 565 |
| Parties | Raymond E. MILLER, Petitioner, v. BREWER COMPANY OF FLORIDA, INC., Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Alan R. Schwartz and Jack M. Bernard, Miami, for petitioner.
Edwin H. Underwood, Jr., and Robert G. Hewitt of Wakefield & Underwood, Miami, and Paul E. Speh and Burnis T. Coleman, Tallahassee, for respondents.
Petitioner-claimant has applied for review on certiorari of an order of the Florida Industrial Commission denying his claim for additional remedial treatment under the provisions of § 440.13, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
The facts were that claimant was injured in an industrial accident in 1952, the last payment of workmen's compensation therefor having been made under a lump-sum award, in 1953. Some four years later--in April and November of 1957--the carrier complied with a request of the claimant for further remedial treatment. The instant claim for additional treatment was made on May 2, 1959, which was within two years of the date of the remedial treatment furnished in 1957. The Commission held, however, that the claimant's right to additional remedial treatment had been barred since 1955 (two years after the date of the last compensation payment) under the provisions of Subsection (3)(b) of § 440.13, supra, providing that the right to remedial treatment 'shall be barred unless claim therefor is filed * * * within two years after the date of the last remedial treatment furnished by the employer, or after the date of the last payment of compensation'; and that the fact that the carrier voluntarily complied with the claimant's request for remedial treatment in 1957 should not and did not operate to revive the right of the claimant to remedial treatment under the statute.
This court on numerous occasions has held that the construction given a statute by the administrative agency charged with its enforcement and interpretation is entitled to great weight, and that the court generally will not depart from such construction except for the most cogent reasons and unless clearly erroneous. We are not persuaded that the language of the statute compels an interpretation contrary to that given it by the Commission, as here contended for by the petitioner-claimant. Cf. 2 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, § 78.43(b), page 271.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ABC Liquors, Inc. (Store No. 126) v. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, SS-372
...Co. v. Green, 110 So.2d 409 (Fla.1959); State ex rel. Volusia Jai-Alai, Inc. v. Ring, 122 So.2d 4 (Fla.1960); Miller v. Brewer Co. of Florida, Inc., 122 So.2d 565 (Fla.1960); Fidelity Constr. Co. v. Arthur J. Collins & Son, Inc., 130 So.2d 612 (Fla.1961); Henderson v. Sol Walker and Co., 13......
-
State v. Florida Development Commission, s. 37190
...and the court generally will not depart therefrom except for the most cogent reasons and unless clearly erroneous. Miller v. Brewer Co. of Fla. (Fla.1960), 122 So.2d 565. See also Pirman v. Florida State Improvement Commission (Fla.1955), 78 So.2d 718. Here, the plans for the proposed Capit......
-
Daniel v. Holmes Lumber Co.
...clearly became barred two years after the last dispensation of continuous remedial treatment. As this Court held in Miller v. Brewer Co., 122 So.2d 565 (Fla.1960), the fact an insurance carrier voluntarily complied with a claimant's request for subsequent remedial treatment once two years h......
-
Daniel v. Holmes Lumber Co.
...Watson was not concerned with reviving a claim following the running of a statute of limitations. Watson determined that Miller v. Brewer Co., 122 So.2d 565 (Fla.1960) did not apply to the facts before the court because the legislature had changed the law concerning when a statute of limita......