
    Chester O. BOYD, Petitioner, v. HUDSON PULP AND PAPER CORPORATION and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.
    No. 32895.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    March 25, 1964.
    
      J. B. Hodges, Lake City, for petitioner.
    Lloyd C. Leemis, Jacksonville, for Hudson Pulp and Paper Corporation; Patrick H. Mears and Paul E. Speh, Tallahassee, for Florida Industrial Commission, respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

This cause came before the court upon petition for certiorari filed by the claimant when the full commission reversed the order of the deputy commissioner awarding him compensation and dismissed the claim. After oral argument and careful study of the record we agree that the order of the deputy was deficient in specific findings of fact and therefore defective and should be reversed, but we think that the cause should be remanded to the deputy commissioner for reconsideration and further findings of fact in accordance with the requirements as delineated in Hardy v. City of Tarpon Springs, 81 So.2d 503 (Fla.1955) and Wiedman v. Daryl Products Corporation, 127 So.2d 448 (Fla.1961).

Accordingly, we quash the order of the commission with directions that the cause be remanded to the deputy commissioner for reconsideration and further findings of fact.

It is so ordered.

THOMAS, ROBERTS, THORNAL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.

DREW, C. J., dissents with opinion.

O’CONNELL and ERVIN, JJ., dissent and concur with DREW, C. J.

DREW, Chief Justice

(dissenting).

In this workmen’s compensation case, the deputy commissioner, after extended hearings, awarded benefits to claimant but, on review, the full commission reversed such award holding:

* * * tjje deputy has failed to make a definite finding that claimant had sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment which either caused a hernia or aggravated a pre-existing hernia. However, even if the deputy had made such a finding, it would appear that there is no competent, substantial evidence which accords with logic and reason to sustain same.”

The majority remand the cause to the deputy to make adequate findings. I think that under the language of the full commission’s order such remand would serve no useful purpose inasmuch as the commission in the last paragraph above quoted has concluded that there is no record evidence sufficient to support the award in any event.

While in some respects the award of the deputy is ambiguous and inartfully drawn, in my view the findings of fact made therein are sufficient to meet the requirements announced by this Court in previous decisions. Moreover, I think there is competent, substantial evidence in the record adequate to support the award of the deputy commissioner. Under such circumstances, it is our duty to reinstate such award and to quash the full commission’s order. The citation of authority to support this conclusion would be redundant.

I would quash the order of the full commission with directions to reinstate the order of the deputy commissioner.

O’CONNELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.  