Summary
In Harrington v. Vida Appliance Corporation, 542 So.2d 1006 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), the court again emphasized that excessive delay would require reversal where the claimant's own credibility, and that of other live witnesses, was critical to the outcome.
Summary of this case from Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fuchs BakingOpinion
No. 88-365.
December 8, 1988.
Appeal from the Deputy Commissioner.
Gerald E. Rosser of Gerald E. Rosser, P.A., Miami, for appellant.
Donald D. Gillis and Carmen J. Battle of Underwood, Gillis Karcher, P.A., Miami, for appellees.
This cause is before us on appeal of an order ruling that claimant did not suffer a work-related injury and denying all benefits. The order below was entered some 245 days after the hearing, and claimant correctly argues that his own credibility and other live witness testimony was critical to the outcome. Because the order was stale when rendered, and due to the possibility that claimant was prejudiced thereby, we reverse and remand for a de novo hearing on all issues. Scottie-Craft Corporation v. Smith, 336 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1976); Miller v. Oolite Industries, Inc., 336 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 1976); Dade County School Board v. Albert, 438 So.2d 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Maddox v. Rinaldi's Expressway Lanes, 459 So.2d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
ERVIN, BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.