Case ID: so2d_208/html/0614-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. CALDWELL, Chief Justice", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FORMITE, INC. and Maryland Casualty Company, Petitioners, v. Charles JAYNES et al., Respondents.
    No. 36855.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    March 27, 1968.
    Rehearing Denied April 23, 1968.
    Charles Desmond Crowley, Fort Lauder-dale, for petitioners.
    Richard A. Sicking, of Kaplan, Dorsey & Sicking, Miami, Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, for respondents,
   PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the petition, briefs, and argument of the parties, we conclude that the writ of certiorari heretofore issued in this cause should be discharged, the petition dismissed, and attorneys’ fees in the amount of $350.00 awarded to counsel for claimant for services in this Court.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL, and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

CALDWELL, C. J., dissents with Opinion.

CALDWELL, Chief Justice

(dissenting):

I dissent. The deputy’s finding of fact is amply supported by the record testimony of the parties and the physician. United States Casualty Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 55 So.2d 741 (Fla.1951), cited by us with approval countless times, holds “ * * the full Commission should not reverse the findings of facts made by a deputy commissioner unless it is made to appear that those findings of facts are not sustained by competent, substantial evidence.”

The Industrial Commission in reversing the deputy, and, perforce, this Court, in affirming the Commission, relies upon Eakins v. Industrial Crane Service, 4 FCR 273, Industrial Crane Service v. Eakins, 131 So.2d 204 (Fla.1961); Deese v. Oolite Rock Co., 4 FCR 345, Oolite Rock Co. v. Deese, 134 So.2d 241 (Fla.1961) and Wickham v. American Airmotive Corp., Decision No. 2-1585, American Airmotive Corp. v. Wickham, 192 So.2d 485 (Fla.1966). The principle of law established by the cited cases is not involved here. Those cases hold the wife of a claimant is entitled to remuneration for nursing services performed for claimant. The deputy here found the services rendered claimant were in the nature of housekeeping, did not fall within the provisions of Florida Statutes, Section 440.13, F.S.A., and were therefore not required to be furnished by the employer-carrier.