SOUTHERN ELECTRIC, INC., AND NEW AMSTERDAM CASUALTY CO., PETITIONERS.
v.
RALPH H. SPALL AND FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case of first impression addresses whether Florida's Workmen's Compensation Law covers damage to artificial limbs or prosthetic devices. The Florida Supreme Court held that such devices, being personal property rather than part of the person, fall outside the scope of compensable injuries under the statute.
The Florida Workmen's Compensation Law does not authorize reimbursement for damage to artificial members or prosthetic devices because such devices are personal property, not part of the person, and the statute expressly limits coverage to 'personal injury or death by accident' and diseases naturally resulting from such injury.
“personal injury or death by accident * * * and such diseases or infection as naturally or unavoidably result from such injury”
This quote establishes the statutory language limiting coverage and demonstrates that artificial devices are not included within the definition of compensable injuries.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn employee (Spall) sought reimbursement under Florida's Workmen's Compensation Law for damage to artificial members or prosthetic devices. The Florid…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Worker'S Compensation Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
The sole question presented in this workmen’s compensation case is whether the Florida Workmen’s Compensation Law1 authorizes reimbursement for damage to artificial members or prosthetic devices.
This is a case of first impression in this State but the answer is clearly discernible from the plain provisions of the Florida Law which limit coverage specifically to “personal injury or death by accident * * * and such diseases or infection as naturally or unavoidably result from such injury.”2 The act makes no provision of compensation for damages to artificial members or prosthetic devices which are personal property and not a part of the person. In every state where this question has been presented under acts similar to ours, the Courts have, without exception, denied compensation.3
*280We are unable to accept the contention of the respondent that we may, by a liberal construction of the act, reach the conclusion that embraced within the term “personal injury” are artificial members or prosthetic devices. This would require us to write into the act words and meaning1 which simply are not there. If the Legislature in its wisdom sees fit to include such items as well as other aids to the individual in the discharge of his obligations, it is a simple matter for it to do so by making such provision in the act itself.
The petition for certiorari is granted, and the order of the full commission is quashed with directions to remand the cause to the deputy for the entry of an order dismissing the respondent’s claim.
THOMAS, C. J., and HOBSON and THORNAL, JJ., concur.
TERRELL, J., dissents.