Sullivan v. Mayo

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtTHORNAL; THOMAS
Citation121 So.2d 424
Decision Date17 June 1960
PartiesJohn P. SULLIVAN, Petitioner, v. Nathan MAYO, Commissioner of Agriculture, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. Nathan MAYO, as Commissioner of Agriculture, of the State of Florida, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, a corporation, Petitioners, v. John P. SULLIVAN and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

Page 424

121 So.2d 424
John P. SULLIVAN, Petitioner,
v.
Nathan MAYO, Commissioner of Agriculture, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.
Nathan MAYO, as Commissioner of Agriculture, of the State of Florida, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, a corporation, Petitioners,
v.
John P. SULLIVAN and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.
Supreme Court of Florida.
June 17, 1960.

Page 426

W. J. Oven, Jr., and Caldwell, Parker, Foster, Madigan, Oven & Moriarty, Tallahassee, for John P. Sullivan, petitioner-respondent.

Keen O'Kelley & Spitz, A. Frank O'Kelley, H. O. Pemberton, Burnis T. Coleman and Paul E. Speh, Tallahassee, for respondents-petitioners.

THORNAL, Justice.

By two petitions for certiorari we are requested to review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission approving a lump sum advance payment of workmen's compensation benefits to petitioner Sullivan, subject to conditions requiring security to the insurance carrier.

We are called upon to determine whether the statute applicable to this particular case authorizes the lump sum advance payment and permits the Industrial Commission to require security from the employee to the carrier as a condition to the award.

An earlier order regarding this settlement was before the District Court of Appeal, First District. Sullivan v. Mayo et al., 106 So.2d 4. In order to eliminate potential confusion as to jurisdiction we note at the outset that the order presently under consideration was an entirely different order from the one formerly considered by the Court of Appeal. When the former order was entered the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to review the same under Section 5(3), Article V, Florida Constitution, F.S.A., which authorizes those courts to 'issue writs of * * * certiorari.' Sullivan v. Mayo, supra. Since the Court of Appeal decision last mentioned,

Page 427

the Florida Legislature has enacted Chapter 59-422, Laws of Florida 1959, F.S.A. § 440.20(10). This section provides that applications for lump sum settlements shall be considered and determined in accordance with Sections 440.25 and 440.27, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Chapter 59-422, supra, took effect July 1, 1959. The order of the full Industrial Commission now submitted for review was entered February 5, 1960, and the order of the deputy commissioner now involved was entered August 13, 1959. Section 440.27, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which is referred to in Chapter 59-422, supra, conveys to this Court appellate jurisdiction over workmen's compensation orders. Consequently, the 1959 statute governing lump sum settlement orders similarly conveys jurisdiction to this Court to review those orders even though they are not technically workmen's compensation orders. We interpolate that the forum in which a review may be obtained is a procedural matter and not a substantive right. As we shall see, Chapter 59-422, supra, could not affect substantive rights of the parties involved because it was enacted long after the date of the injury. However, the matter of the review forum is not substantive but rather procedural and is, therefore, governed by the 1959 act.

We now recur to a brief history and factual background of the instant matter. Mr. Sullivan was injured in the course of his employment of December 23, 1955. Reference to Sullivan v. Mayo, 106 So.2d 4, will reveal that in May 1957, he filed a petition for a lump sum settlement of his weekly compensation. After an extensive hearing the deputy commissioner on October 16, 1957, concluded that Mr. Sullivan, a paraplegic as a result of the industrial accident, had a life expectancy of 27.19 years. He also decided that it was to the best interest of the employee to award the lump sum settlement which would be the commuted value of his compensation for a period of 1,414 weeks. Upon review the full commission concluded that the lump sum settlement provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act were not intended to apply to cases of permanent total disability and that it would be inapplicable to the requested settlement in the instant case. On appeal the district court of appeal, Sullivan v. Mayo, supra, reversed. That court correctly held that the Florida Workmen's Compensation Act contained no restriction against awarding a lump sum settlement when all future payments were properly commuted to present value even though it covered the life expectancy of one permanently and totally disabled. The court of appeal also held that the full commission was the agency to determine whether or not it was to the best interest of a claimant to have his compensation paid in lump sum. This ruling was made pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 29778, Laws of Florida 1955, which took effect July 1, 1955, prior to Mr. Sullivan's injury. The cause was remanded to the full commission for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the court of appeal.

Upon remand, the full commission reconsidered the record and decided that it failed to sustain a conclusion that it would be to the best interest of Mr. Sullivan to award a lump sum settlement. It ordered that the petition for such settlement be dismissed.

After the entry of the order of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
74 practice notes
  • Martinez v. Scanlan, No. 77179
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 6, 1991
    ...be paid even after the lower court declared the statute invalid and the state should have known it to be invalid. 8 In Sullivan v. Mayo, 121 So.2d 424 (Fla.1960), cert. denied, 133 So.2d 647 (Fla.1961), we held that substantive rights are fixed at the time of the injury to the employee, and......
  • Walker & LaBerge, Inc. v. Halligan, No. 49056
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • March 17, 1977
    ...84 S.Ct. 615, 11 L.Ed.2d 576 (1964). That rights under the Workmen's Compensation Act are substantive is established in Sullivan v. Mayo, 121 So.2d 424, 428 '. . . It is well established in Florida that the substantive rights of the respective parties under the Workmen's Compensation Law ar......
  • Foliage Design Systems, Inc. v. Fernandez, No. 90-3382
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • November 13, 1991
    ...2d DCA 1979); Village of El Portal v. City of Miami Shores, 362 So.2d 275 (Fla.1978), rehearing denied, (Fla.1978); Sullivan v. Mayo, 121 So.2d 424 2 See Richardson v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. 686 F.Supp. 303 (M.D.Fla.1988); Peck v. Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners, 442 So.2d 10......
  • Rothermel v. Florida Parole and Probation Com'n, No. AR-333
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 14, 1983
    ...that no vested rights exist as to a particular remedy or mode of procedure. 16A Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 672; Sullivan v. Mayo, 121 So.2d 424 (Fla.1960); Turner v. United States, Page 665 Although we have found no Florida case squarely on point with respect to the applicability of the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
74 cases
  • Martinez v. Scanlan, No. 77179
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 6, 1991
    ...be paid even after the lower court declared the statute invalid and the state should have known it to be invalid. 8 In Sullivan v. Mayo, 121 So.2d 424 (Fla.1960), cert. denied, 133 So.2d 647 (Fla.1961), we held that substantive rights are fixed at the time of the injury to the employee, and......
  • Walker & LaBerge, Inc. v. Halligan, No. 49056
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • March 17, 1977
    ...84 S.Ct. 615, 11 L.Ed.2d 576 (1964). That rights under the Workmen's Compensation Act are substantive is established in Sullivan v. Mayo, 121 So.2d 424, 428 '. . . It is well established in Florida that the substantive rights of the respective parties under the Workmen's Compensation Law ar......
  • Foliage Design Systems, Inc. v. Fernandez, No. 90-3382
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • November 13, 1991
    ...2d DCA 1979); Village of El Portal v. City of Miami Shores, 362 So.2d 275 (Fla.1978), rehearing denied, (Fla.1978); Sullivan v. Mayo, 121 So.2d 424 2 See Richardson v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. 686 F.Supp. 303 (M.D.Fla.1988); Peck v. Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners, 442 So.2d 10......
  • Rothermel v. Florida Parole and Probation Com'n, No. AR-333
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 14, 1983
    ...that no vested rights exist as to a particular remedy or mode of procedure. 16A Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 672; Sullivan v. Mayo, 121 So.2d 424 (Fla.1960); Turner v. United States, Page 665 Although we have found no Florida case squarely on point with respect to the applicability of the......
  • 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