Agrico Chemical Co. v. Tucker

I would affirm the deputy’s order in its entirety. I see no need to remand the case for a redetermination of a date subsequent to the original compensation order from *675which a later order should be made effective. I would simply treat the order of June 2, 1980, finding claimant entitled to PPD benefits based upon an anatomical impairment of twenty-five percent, as a mistake of fact. Although this court’s earlier opinion remanded the cause to the deputy based upon a material change in claimant’s condition, Tucker v. Agrico Chemical Co., 476 So.2d 729 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), we certainly did not…