Sullivan v. Mayo, No. A-360

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtDREW, E. HARRIS; STURGIS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD
Citation106 So.2d 4
Decision Date28 October 1958
Docket NumberNo. A-360
PartiesJohn P. SULLIVAN, Petitioner, v. Nathan MAYO, Commissioner of Agriculture, and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

Page 4

106 So.2d 4
John P. SULLIVAN, Petitioner,
v.
Nathan MAYO, Commissioner of Agriculture, and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.
No. A-360.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Oct. 28, 1958.

Page 5

W. J. Oven, Jr., Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Keen, O'Kelley & Spitz and Burnis T. Coleman, Tallahassee, for respondents.

DREW, E. HARRIS, Associate Judge.

This cause is before the Court on petition for writ of certiorari to review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission reversing an order of its deputy by which the claimant Sullivan, petitioner in this Court, was awarded a lump sum settlement of his claim under the Workmen's Compensation Law, F.S. § 440.20(10), F.S.A.

In December, 1955, the petitioner sustained a compensable injury which resulted in permanent total disability (paraplegia with complete paralysis of lower extremities from a point above the waist), for which he was awarded and has continuously received weekly compensation in the amount of $35. Petition for lump sum settlement under the above cited provision was filed in May, 1957, based upon petitioner's need for funds to construct a home adapted to his disability; to launch a home business venture which can be operated by petitioner's family; to purchase an automobile designed to be operated by a paraplegic; and to develop certain realty presently owned by petitioner so that it would in the future provide income more adequate than compensation payments for family support.

For reasons hereinafter set forth it will be unnecessary to review in detail the evidence before the deputy. In his attack upon the Commission's order the petitioner relies heavily upon the substantial evidence rule-that a reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the trial forum unless there is no competent substantial evidence to sustain its findings.

This argument is, however, inapplicable in the situation at bar. The cases applying that rule to findings of a deputy commissioner in workmen's compensation proceedings are squarely predicated on the fact that in the determination of compensation claims the law itself makes the deputy the trier of facts and charges him with the duty of deciding the issues and entering an order accordingly. F.S. § 440.25, F.S.A.

Page 6

United States Casualty Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., Fla., 55 So.2d 741. In the case of a petition for lump sum payment, however, dealing only with the manner of payment as opposed to claimant's right to compensation, the statute provides that lump sum payment shall be made 'whenever the commission determines that it is for the best interests of a person entitled to compensation.' F.S. § 440.20(10), F.S.A. The reasoning in the case of Tamiami Trail Tours v. Carter, Fla., 80 So.2d 322, is therefore controlling. Although the Commission possesses the authority to delegate to a duly authorized representative or subordinate agent the duty of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Sullivan v. Mayo
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 17, 1960
    ...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 enti......
  • State ex rel. Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Florida Indus. Commission, No. 31891
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • April 3, 1963
    ...the award to be made, and other essentially controlling factors. He is the trier of the facts, as we said in Sullivan v. Mayo, Fla.App., 106 So.2d 4. In this case the court observed: 'In the case of a petition for lump sum payment, however, dealing only with the manner of payment as opposed......
  • Star Employment Service, Inc. v. Florida Indus. Commission
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 15, 1960
    ...as follows: 'A district court of appeal may issue writs of * * * certiorari * * *.' Page 177 See Sullivan v. Mayo, Fla.App. 1st Dist., 106 So.2d 4. Absent legislative action it is also clear from Article V, Section 26(10) that it is contemplated that all orders of the Florida Industrial Com......
  • Colonial Restaurant Corp. v. State Dept. of Commerce, No. 70--881
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 26, 1971
    ...award of 'compensation' is prerequisite to an award of attorney's fee * * *.' (Emphasis added.) See also Sullivan v. Mayo, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 4. We conclude therefore that Section 440.34(1) does not support the award of attorneys' Page 500 fees for the collection of delinquent assessme......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Sullivan v. Mayo
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 17, 1960
    ...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 enti......
  • State ex rel. Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Florida Indus. Commission, No. 31891
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • April 3, 1963
    ...the award to be made, and other essentially controlling factors. He is the trier of the facts, as we said in Sullivan v. Mayo, Fla.App., 106 So.2d 4. In this case the court observed: 'In the case of a petition for lump sum payment, however, dealing only with the manner of payment as opposed......
  • Star Employment Service, Inc. v. Florida Indus. Commission
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 15, 1960
    ...as follows: 'A district court of appeal may issue writs of * * * certiorari * * *.' Page 177 See Sullivan v. Mayo, Fla.App. 1st Dist., 106 So.2d 4. Absent legislative action it is also clear from Article V, Section 26(10) that it is contemplated that all orders of the Florida Industrial Com......
  • Colonial Restaurant Corp. v. State Dept. of Commerce, No. 70--881
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 26, 1971
    ...award of 'compensation' is prerequisite to an award of attorney's fee * * *.' (Emphasis added.) See also Sullivan v. Mayo, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 4. We conclude therefore that Section 440.34(1) does not support the award of attorneys' Page 500 fees for the collection of delinquent assessme......
  • 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