Sonny Boy's Fruit Co. v. Compton

Decision Date05 May 1950
Citation46 So.2d 17
PartiesSONNY BOY'S FRUIT CO. et al. v. COMPTON.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Earnest, Lewis & Smith, West Palm Beach, for Sonny Boy's Fruit Co. and National Casualty Co.

Wendell C. Heaton, Tallahassee, for Florida Industrial Commission.

Harry Goodmark, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

TERRELL, Justice.

On November 22, 1946, the claimant sustained an injury to the great toe of his right foot. His claim for compensation was contested on the ground that the injury was not sustained in the course of his employment. The controversy was heard by the Deputy Commissioner and compensation was awarded and paid up to and including August 16, 1947. The claimant then filed his claim for additional compensation which was denied after considerable medical testimony was taken. The time for taking an appeal to the Industrial Commission expired and no appeal was taken. In 1949 claimant applied to the Deputy Commissioner for modification of the order denying his claim for additional compensation based on misinterpretation of the facts adduced. Additional evidence was taken and the carrier was ordered to bear the expense of an operation recommended by the doctors' report and to pay compensation pending recovery from the operation. On appeal to the full Commission this order was reversed and the claim was dismissed. On appeal the Circuit Court found that there was substantial evidence to sustain the finding of the Deputy Commissioner, on the strength of which he reversed the order of the full Commission and reinstated the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The carrier and the Florida Industrial Commission have appealed from the latter order.

The point for determination is whether or not on appeal from an order of the Industrial Commission to the Circuit Court, the court is limited to review of the order of the Industrial Commission or may it review the order of the Deputy Commissioner and reverse the order of the Industrial Commission on the basis of his finding as to the order of the Deputy Commissioner.

It is clear from the Circuit Court's order of reversal that he reviewed the order of the Deputy Commissioner and reversed the order of the full Commission because he found 'substantial competent evidence to sustain the determination of the Deputy Commissioner.' In McCall et al. v. Motor Fuel Carriers et al., 155 Fla. 854, 22 So.2d 153, and Crawford v. Benrus Market et al., Fla., 40 So.2d 889, this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Massie v. University of Florida, BN-98
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 29, 1990
    ...141 So.2d 581 (Fla.1962).5 The first Florida Supreme Court decision to construe the mistake of fact amendment is Sonny Boy's Fruit Co. v. Compton, 46 So.2d 17 (Fla.1950), but that opinion discusses the statute without a single reference to any case construing and applying similar language.6......
  • Town of Crescent City v. Green
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • December 14, 1951
    ...McCall v. Motor Fuel Carriers, Inc., 155 Fla. 854, 22 So.2d 153; Crawford v. Benrus Market, Fla., 40 So.2d 889, and Sonny Boy's Fruit Co. v. Compton, Fla., 46 So.2d 17. An answer to the following question may be determinative of this controversy: May a Circuit Judge, when reviewing on appea......
  • International Minerals & Chemical Corp. v. Tucker
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • December 18, 1951
    ...towit: McCall v. Motor Fuel Carriers, 155 Fla. 854, 22 So.2d 153; Crawford v. Benrus Market, Fla., 40 So.2d 889, and Sonny Boy's Fruit Co. v. Compton, Fla., 46 So.2d 17, and similar cases, may be construed to mean that a new and different rule (from that enunciated by us in Florida Forest &......
  • Flesche v. Interstate Warehouse, AD-327
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 15, 1982
    ...E/C's reliance on the Sauder case appears to have been inappropriate. Furthermore, the E/C's reliance here upon Sonny Boy's Fruit Company v. Compton, 46 So.2d 17 (Fla.1950), is inapposite, for the same reasons given by the Dixon court for disregarding it in that case, namely, that the attem......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT