Steele v. A. D. H. Bldg. Contractors, Inc., 33733
| Citation | 174 So.2d 16 |
| Decision Date | 07 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 33733,33733 |
| Parties | Ralph STEELE, Petitioner, v. A. D. H. BUILDING CONTRACTORS, INC., Robert F. Coleman of Florida, Inc., and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Richard A. Sicking, Kaplan, Ser, Abrams & O'Malley, Miami, and Steve Watkins, of Truett & Watkins, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Lally, Miller & Hodges, Miami, Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, for respondents.
This cause is presented on a petition for certiorari to review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission reversing an order of the deputy commissioner.
The petitioner was hurt during his employment, as a carpenter, when he fell from a roof injuring his back and shoulders. He filed claim for compensation. The parties then agreed to a settlement by which the injured workman would receive 50% permanent partial disability. The stipulation was comprehensive, covering the various aspects of the claim. Included in it was the following language:
'The rating agreed to below is based upon the employee's hearing loss, his shoulder injury, the extent of aggravation and/or acceleration of his low back problems, and after a compromise of the parties' assertions with respect to the employee's incapacity because of his injuries to earn in the same or any other employment the wages he was receiving at the time of the injury.'
The stipulation was approved by the deputy commissioner 4 June 1962, and on 2 December 1963 a hearing was held on a petition of respondents to modify the deputy's order. It developed at the hearing that the claimant was then working as a masseur although on occasion since his injury he had done light carpentry work, and he stated that he would not give up his work as a masseur and return to light carpentry work because that caused him pain.
At this hearing, concerning modification, it was evidently agreed that the claimant still suffered a 20% permanent partial disability of the shoulder and 15% disability of the back. We say 'evidently' because that is a fair interpretation of the record. Moreover, the petitioner states in his brief that this was 'stipulated' and the respondents do not challenge the statement.
The deputy concluded that there was no substantial evidence either of a change of condition or mistake of fact.
The case then went to the Full Commission where the deputy's order was reversed, it having been the view of that body that the stipulation with reference to the '50 per cent permanent partial disability of the body as a whole as a result of * * * [claimant's] diminution of earning capacity' was based on the inability of claimant to return to his former occupation of carpentry.
We find in the record abundant support for the deputy's conclusion that there had been no mistake of fact or change of condition, one of which must be established to warrant modification of the original order which was thoroughly justified, if for no other reason, because it was founded on the stipulation of the parties. We think it may be assumed without and violence of logic that when parties agree to facts and induce a deputy to enter an order because of confidence in their joint representation, all of them are in poor position later to represent that they were mistaken about those facts, in the absence of fraud, overreaching or some such element, but none is indicated in this case.
The Full Commission, despite the stipulation, thought the deputy should have modified his order because of a basic fact since the claimant had been shown to have indulged in carpentry work after the entry of the order for compensation and benefits.
It should be repeated here that even in the hearing on modification, it was evidently stipulated that the claimant still had a 20% permanent partial disability of the shoulder and 15% such disability of the body as a whole 'with reference to the injuries to his back.'
As we construe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Massie v. University of Florida, BN-98
...quest for finality of decision so as to deny modification based on a mistake in a determination of fact. Steele v. A.D.H. Building Contractors, Inc., 174 So.2d 16 (Fla.1965); Dixon v. Bruce Construction Corp., 160 So.2d 116 (Fla.1963); Sauder v. Coast Cities Coaches, Inc., 156 So.2d 162 (Fl......
-
Fawaz v. Florida Polymers
...or withholding facts by the adversary or some such element as would render the agreement void." Steele v. A.D.H. Bldg. Contractors, Inc., 174 So.2d 16, 19 (Fla.1965). The party seeking to avoid the stipulation is ordinarily required to file a motion seeking withdrawal of the stipulation sup......
-
Eastern Airlines v. Griffin
...case law recognizes additional grounds for modification if the order was based upon a stipulation. See Steele v. A.D.H. Bldg. Contractors, Inc., 174 So.2d 16, 19 (Fla.1965) ("fraud, overreaching, misrepresentation or withholding facts by the adversary or some such element as would render th......
-
Champlovier v. City of Miami, 93-710
...was predicated on a stipulation entered into in order to "expedit[e] the resolution of controversies," Steele v. A.D.H. Bldg. Contractors, Inc., 174 So.2d 16, 19 (Fla.1965), as to appellant's entitlement to temporary disability benefits. The parties could not possibly have intended to be bo......