Burdines Department Store v. Palmer

489 So. 2d 1167, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1184, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8029
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 22, 1986
DocketNo. BH-362
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 489 So. 2d 1167 (Burdines Department Store v. Palmer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Burdines Department Store v. Palmer, 489 So. 2d 1167, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1184, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8029 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

NIMMONS, Judge.

The employer/carrier appeal from an order of the deputy commissioner granting claimant’s petition for modification of the deputy’s earlier order which had denied permanent total disability. We reverse.

The deputy granted claimant’s petition for modification on the grounds that (1) he had made a mistake in a determination of fact and (2) there had been a change in claimant’s condition. However, the order granting the petition cannot be sustained on either ground.

The deputy believed that he had made a mistake in a determination of fact in that he had not considered certain testimony which was given in November 1983 in an earlier proceeding before another deputy commissioner. However, it is clear from the record that the claimant’s attorney failed to present this testimony to the deputy at the initial hearing in June 1984, either in the form of a transcript or otherwise. It was the claimant’s responsibility to have had such critical testimony admitted into evidence at the June 1984 hearing. As in any other proceeding, he is bound by the evidence he has presented. Thus, the mistake made in this case was not by the deputy, but by the claimant.

Further, the order cannot be sustained on the ground that there was a change in claimant’s condition. The deputy stated in the appealed order that claimant had suffered a material change in condition in that claimant was suffering from advanced cataracts. However, the evidence available at the initial hearing established that claimant was suffering from advanced cataracts even then. Thus, there had been no change in claimant’s condition.

The deputy’s order granting claimant’s petition for modification is therefore

REVERSED.

BARFIELD, J., and FRANK, RICHARD H. (Associate Judge), concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Deneault v. Alachua County School Bd.
555 So. 2d 909 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
489 So. 2d 1167, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1184, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burdines-department-store-v-palmer-fladistctapp-1986.