Maysles v. May

251 So. 2d 251, 1971 Fla. LEXIS 3466
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJuly 8, 1971
DocketNo. 40540
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 251 So. 2d 251 (Maysles v. May) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Maysles v. May, 251 So. 2d 251, 1971 Fla. LEXIS 3466 (Fla. 1971).

Opinion

DEKLE, Justice.

There has been no final hearing in this workmen’s compensation case. The two sides seem to have been “jockeying for position” in the presentation of their cases before the Judge of Industrial Claims. Just five days prior to scheduled final hearing, respondent-employer moved for a second compulsory physical, which was granted, but petitioner-claimant’s attorney says that he never did receive a copy of such order, so that upon appearing at the hearing he was taken by surprise and stated that he was prepared to proceed, although it would be prejudicial to have a subsequent further physical examination of his client prior to the employer putting on his case thereafter. According to the employer’s version, claimant’s counsel refused to go forward at the time of the hearing.

Employer’s motion to dismiss was granted without any testimony or evidence being [252]*252presented. Thereafter the Claims Judge vacated his earlier order requiring the second physical examination by claimant and entered a formal order of dismissal, invoking the appellate process.

Upon this state of the record, the Full Commission denied the review and stated that “the findings of fact of the Judge of Industrial Claims were supported by competent substantial evidence.” This is hardly possible when there had been no hearing upon which “findings” could be based.

The tactical moves outlined apparently precipitated a dismissal of the cause. A new date should have been set under the circumstances and the cause heard.

Certiorari is accordingly granted; the order and decision of the Industrial Relations Commission is quashed; and the cause is remanded to the Judge of Industrial Claims for hearing and entry of his findings and order thereon.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Roberts v. Ben Hill Griffin, Inc.
629 So. 2d 236 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Vogel v. City of Coral Gables
298 So. 2d 389 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
251 So. 2d 251, 1971 Fla. LEXIS 3466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maysles-v-may-fla-1971.