ERNEST LEE THOMAS, PETITIONER,

v.

GENERAL ELEVATOR CORPORATION ET AL., RESPONDENTS

Citator

Cited By

• Piezo Tech. & Prof'l Administrators, Inc. v. Smith, 413 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
  …t any event, it has been held that when a judicial function is involved, the Division is deemed to act through the orders of the respective judges of industrial claims. See Thomas v. General Elevator Corporation, 9 FCR 179, 180 (1975), cert. denied, 316 So. 2d 294 (Fla.1975); R. E. Ledford Const. Co. v. King, 381 So. 2d 330, 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). There is also no reason why the Division could not delegate agency head status to the deputy commissioner for the limited purpose of resolving a Section 440.205 c…
• R. E. Ledford Constr. Co. & Travelers Ins. Co. v. King, 381 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
  …ual consideration.” When a judicial function is involved, as it is here, the Division is deemed to act through the orders of the respective judges of industrial claims. See Thomas v. General Elevator Corporation, 9 FCR 179, 180 (1975), cert. denied, 316 So. 2d 294 (Fla.1975). Admittedly the judge’s order did not expressly find that the laminectomy performed was an unusual procedure, but that finding is im.plicit in the following language: I have reviewed the operative notes and find that Dr. Sutton explored…