Mobley v. Fulford Van & Storage
| Decision Date | 13 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. SS-287,SS-287 |
| Citation | 390 So.2d 426 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Keith E. MOBLEY, Appellant, v. FULFORD VAN & STORAGE and Monarch Insurance Company, Appellees. |
Steven C. Burrage and Robert D. Melton, Orlando, for appellant.
Janet L. Brown, of Haas, Boehm & Brown, Orlando, for appellees.
In this worker's compensation appeal we affirm the deputy commissioner's ruling denying appellant's objection to surveillance films offered into evidence by the employer/carrier. Rules 10(a)(4) and (5), Florida Worker's Compensation Rules of Procedure (temporary) provide that impeachment and rebuttal exhibits and witnesses need not be revealed at the pretrial conference. Further, the deputy commissioner's refusal to order disclosure or production will not be reversed absent a showing of abuse of discretion. Melton v. Bowen Roofing Company, IRC Order 2-3376 (March 15, 1978). Appellee points out that the surveillance witnesses were known to the claimant's counsel more than a month prior to the final hearing, but no effort was made to elicit information from them by means of depositions.
We reverse the order of the deputy commissioner for failure to set forth findings upon which he based denial of the benefits sought by the claimant. Vargas v. Americana of Bal Harbour, 345 So.2d 1052 (Fla.1976); Pierce v. Piper Aircraft Corporation, 279 So.2d 281 (Fla.1973); and Westberry v. Copeland Sausage Company et al., 389 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), Case No. SS-356, Opinion filed October 27, 1980.
Here the order contains little more than could be gleaned from a cursory glance at the index to the record on appeal. We agree with appellees' assertion that it is not necessary for the deputy commissioner to make a belabored finding of fact on each and every potential question which may have arisen in the course of the claim and compensation hearing. The order here for review, however, contains no findings whatever with respect to the nature of the accident, the injuries sustained, the treatment provided in the past or presently being provided, and no indication whatever concerning the past or present complaints or disabilities for which the claimant is seeking benefits. We strongly disagree with appellees' assertion that it is the function of this court, when faced with an order of this kind, to "search the record on appeal for any support of the compensation order, and if such is found, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Massie v. University of Florida, BN-98
...Hanson, 400 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); University of Florida v. Green, 395 So.2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Mobley v. Fulford Van & Storage, 390 So.2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The decision to affirm the original order in this case rather than remand for further findings of fact was based......
-
Broadfoot v. Albert Hugo Ass'n, Inc.
...determine the factual and legal basis for the deputy's conclusion, we reverse and remand for further findings. Mobley v. Fulford Van & Storage, 390 So.2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Westberry v. Copeland Sausage Company, 389 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); and Kennedy v. Tyson, 382 So.2d 820 (......
-
Trujillo v. Southern Wine & Spirits, BR-230
...It is not the court's function, however, to search the record for any support of an order and affirm it. Mobley v. Fulford Van & Storage, 390 So.2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). See also University of Florida v. Green, 395 So.2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Evans v. Orlando Work Force, 449 So.2d 992......
-
Calleyro v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center
...has been approved in cases such as Gray Truck Line Co. v. Robbins, 476 So.2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), and Mobley v. Fulford Van & Storage, 390 So.2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). While Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So.2d 1310 (Fla.1981), purports to reject any distinction between impeachment......