Collins Glass Co. v. Axelrod

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Collins Glass Co. v. Axelrod

390 So. 2d 819, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18168

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 4, 1980

DocketNo. SS-367

StatusPublished

This text of 390 So. 2d 819 (Collins Glass Co. v. Axelrod) 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

Collins Glass Co. v. Axelrod, 390 So. 2d 819, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18168 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinions

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.

We affirm this compensation order. As Judge Shaw’s dissenting opinion indicates, the principal issue is whether this claimant’s permanent disability should be rated at 20 percent of the hand, as ordered by the deputy commissioner, or at 30 percent of the middle or long finger. Substantial competent evidence, in the live testimony of the claimant before the deputy and in the deposition testimony of the attending surgeon, supports the deputy’s finding. It is true, as Judge Shaw points out, that the deputy’s order erroneously recites that surgery was performed not only on claimant’s middle finger but also on the fourth finger on the same hand. This obvious misstatement of claimant’s medical history was traceable to a transcribing error in the surgeon’s notes and to his momentary confusion in the deposition which counsel submitted to the deputy for his decision. Considering how readily counsel may have avoided or corrected what appears to be an inconsequential error in the historical recitals of the deputy’s order, and in light of the substantial evidence supporting the deputy’s ultimate finding, the order is

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, J., concurs. SHAW, J., dissents with opinion.

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

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.

We affirm this compensation order. As Judge Shaw’s dissenting opinion indicates, the principal issue is whether this claimant’s permanent disability should be rated at 20 percent of the hand, as ordered by the deputy commissioner, or at 30 percent of the middle or long finger. Substantial competent evidence, in the live testimony of the claimant before the deputy and in the deposition testimony of the attending surgeon, supports the deputy’s finding. It is true, as Judge Shaw points out, that the deputy’s order erroneously recites that surgery was performed not only on claimant’s middle finger but also on the fourth finger on the same hand. This obvious misstatement of claimant’s medical history was traceable to a transcribing error in the surgeon’s notes and to his momentary confusion in the deposition which counsel submitted to the deputy for his decision. Considering how readily counsel may have avoided or corrected what appears to be an inconsequential error in the historical recitals of the deputy’s order, and in light of the substantial evidence supporting the deputy’s ultimate finding, the order is

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, J., concurs. SHAW, J., dissents with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

390 So. 2d 819, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-glass-co-v-axelrod-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack