SECURITY ALUMINUM WINDOWS AND UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARION SMITH, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Security Aluminum Windows and its fidelity insurer appealed a workers' compensation order awarding permanent total disability benefits to an injured employee. The court reversed and remanded due to inadequate notice of the final hearing, without addressing the merits of whether the disability award and attendant services award were supported by competent evidence.
The court held that appellants did not receive adequate written notice of the final hearing, as notice received only one day before the hearing violated statutory and due process requirements. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial on the notice issue, rendering it unnecessary to address the merits of the disability and attendant services awards.
[1] A workers' compensation hearing held without adequate written notice to a party violates due process rights.
[2] A party in a workers' compensation proceeding has a right to full and adequate notice of hearings.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Although no new issues were explored or developed at the last hearing, appellants still had a right to full and adequate notice.”
Establishes that procedural due process rights to adequate notice apply even when no new substantive issues are raised at a hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarion Smith, age 49 with a ninth-grade education and a history of heavy labor work, suffered a back injury on May 12, 1977, while making windows for …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Wage Earning Capacity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, Security Aluminum Windows and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, bring this appeal from a final workers’ compensation order entered July 14, 1978. The order awarded appellee, Marion Smith, permanent total disability benefits. Appellants present the following points on appeal:
1. Whether there is competent, substantial evidence to support a finding that claimant is permanently, totally disabled.
2. Whether there is competent, substantial evidence to support an award for attendant services of $35 per day to claimant’s daughter for essentially household duties. 3. Whether the trial judge’s failure to give adequate notice of trial constitutes denial of due process of law.
We reverse and remand for new trial on Point 3.
Appellee, aged 49 with a ninth grade education, has a job history in heavy labor. On May 12, 1977, she injured her back at work making windows for appellant employer, after she bent over to pick up some aluminum. Claim was made for all workers’ compensation benefits to which appel-lee might be entitled, including nursing services. Several hearings were held before the deputy commissioner, the last on July 11, 1978. The appellants did not receive written notice of this hearing until July 10, 1978. The appellants properly objected that they had received inadequate notice of this hearing.
The deputy commissioner found that appellee had a 20% permanent partial impairment of the body as a whole due to her low back injuries, but that she was permanently and totally disabled because of her total loss of wage earning capacity as a result of the industrial accident. He also found that appellee’s daughter was entitled to $35.00 per day from May 24, 1977, until July 22, 1977, for attendant services rendered to appellee. However, he did not specifically make an award for such attendant services in the decretal portions of the order. As to Point 3, we agree with the appellants that the last hearing on the cause should not have been held where written notice was not received until only one day before the hearing. Although no new issues were explored or developed at the last hearing, appellants still had a right to full and adequate notice. § 440.25(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1977); Lundy’s Market, Inc. v. Wexler, IRC Order 2-3739 (March 20, 1979). On Point 3, the order is accordingly reversed, and the case is remanded for new trial, rendering unnecessary our addressing the merits of Points 1 and 2.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ERVIN, SHIVERS and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Hollman, 720 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…ans reasonable notice, including a meaningful opportunity to defend against the alle [*1150] gations of the motion or complaint. It means the ability to offer evidence and to secure a record of the proceedings.”); Security Aluminum Windows v. Smith, 381 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (written notice received one day before hearing held inadequate). Additionally, the injunction order merely states that the court had reviewed Appellee’s request and that the Department was enjoined from further suspending her…