ALMA RUTH GREGG, PETITIONER CROSS-RESPONDENT,
v.
FONTAINEBLEAU HOTEL AND THE FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS CROSS-PETITIONERS,
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.
The Florida Supreme Court denied both the claimant's petition and the employer/carrier's cross-petition, finding no deviation from the essential requirements of law in the Industrial Commission's order. The court also denied the claimant's request for attorney's fees.
The court found no deviation from the essential requirements of law in the Industrial Commission's order and therefore denied the petitions.
“Our consideration of the petition, the cross petition, the record and the briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.”
This quote establishes the court's primary basis for its decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant sought review of an Industrial Commission order that vacated a Deputy Commissioner's order and remanded for a determination of the percen…
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 Average Weekly Wage Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
The claimant, Alma Ruth Gregg, seeks review of an order of the Florida Industrial Commission vacating the order of the Deputy Commissioner and remanding the case with instructions to determine the percentage of acceleration or aggravation of claimant’s pre-existing disability or disc disease. The employer and carrier cross petition from the Commission’s affirmance of the Deputy Commissioner’s finding that the claimant’s average weekly wage is $100.
Our consideration of the petition, the cross petition, the record and the briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law. The petition and cross petition are, therefore, denied.
It is further ordered that the petitioner’s petition for allowance of attorneys’ fees, be and the same is hereby denied.
THORNAL, C. J., THOMAS, ROBERTS and O’CONNELL, JJ., and TROW-BRIDGE, Circuit Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1970)…ubin et al. v. Sanford, 168 So. 2d 774 (Fla.App.3rd, 1964); Rubin et al. v. Shapiro, 170 So. 2d 460 (Fla.App.3rd, 1965). Petitions for certiorari were denied by this Court. Rubin et al. v. Sanford, 180 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1965); Rubin et al. v. Shapiro, 180 So. 2d 334 (Fla.1965). After the cases were remanded, a disagreement arose- as to whether these firemen were entitled to full pay for the time they were off the City’s payroll or whether they were entitled to only the difference between their salaries and wha…