THE COUNTRY CLUB OF FLORIDA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONERS, CROSS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
CHESTER FREEMAN AND THE FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS, CROSS-PETITIONER
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 a petition for certiorari, finding no essential legal requirements were violated. The court granted a cross-petition to affirm an Industrial Commission order, modifying it to award temporary partial disability benefits at the maximum rate without remanding for further consideration.
The court held that the claimant is entitled to temporary partial disability benefits at the maximum rate between his heart attack and the trial date. The court also held that remanding the case for reconsideration by the Judge of Industrial Claims was unnecessary.
“We find upon argument of counsel for the respective parties, consideration of the briefs and the record in this cause that the essential requirements of law have not been violated.”
This quote establishes the court's initial finding regarding the employer's petition for certiorari.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida Industrial Commission issued an order regarding temporary partial disability compensation for a claimant who suffered a heart attack. The …
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.
By petition and cross-petition for a writ of certiorari, we have for review an Order of the Florida Industrial Commission dated October 17, 1968.
We find upon argument of counsel for the respective parties, consideration of the briefs and the record in this cause that the essential requirements of law have not been violated. It is, therefore, ordered that the petition be and the same is hereby denied.
Further, we are of the opinion that the cross-petition properly seeks to have the Order of the Full Commission affirmed, but with the proviso that any requirement of remand be stricken. The Full Commission, rather than remanding, should merely have modified the Judge of Industrial Claims’ order changing the payment of temporary partial disability compensation from *318the $5.47 per week amount to the $42.00 per week amount. Accordingly, we now hold that the claimant is entitled to receive temporary partial disability benefits at the maximum rate during the period intervening between his heart attack and the date of trial. We also hold that the remanding of this cause for reconsideration by the Judge of Industrial Claims is unnecessary.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, C. J., DREW, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., and SMITH, Circuit Judge, concur.