ANTHONY CIANCI, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA STATE BEVERAGE DEPARTMENT, HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, AND THE 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Florida Industrial Commission's decision that had overturned a Deputy Commissioner's award of permanent partial disability benefits to an employee who suffered a herniated intervertebral disc in an industrial accident. The court held that functional disability and loss of wage-earning capacity are distinct considerations for non-scheduled injuries, and that an increase in wages following an accident is not conclusive in determining disability compensation.
The court held that the Deputy Commissioner's award of 30% permanent partial disability was adequately supported by competent substantial evidence. The court established that for non-scheduled injuries, functional disability and loss of wage-earning capacity are not presumptively the same, and while an increase in wages following an accident must be considered, it is not a conclusive factor in determining the extent of loss of wage-earning capacity.
“functional disability and loss of wage earning capacity are not presumptively the same for a non-scheduled injury”
Establishes the key legal principle that these two concepts are distinct for purposes of determining compensation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnthony Cianci suffered a herniated intervertebral disc in a compensable industrial accident and ultimately returned to work under the state merit sys…
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 Functional Disability cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review a compensation order of the Florida Industrial Commission which reversed an order of a Deputy Commissioner awarding permanent partial disability benefits to an employee, Anthony Cianci.
Cianci suffered a herniated intervertebral disc in a compensable industrial accident. He ultimately returned to work under the state merit system. At the time of the hearing his monthly salary was somewhat greater than it was at the time of the injury. The Deputy concluded that eléments in addition to the employee’s functional disability supported an award of compensation on the basis of 30% permanent partial disability, despite the increase in earnings. An extended discussion of the evidence before the Deputy is unnecessary. In fixing the extent of a claimant’s disability the Deputy considered all of the factors prescribed in Ball v. Mann, Fla., 75 So.2d 758, for the determination of loss of wage earning capacity. In addition, he noted the holding in Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Bell, Fla., 116 So.2d 617, to the effect that functional disability and loss of wage earning capacity are not presumptively the same for a non-scheduled injury. He also held that an increase in wages following an industrial accident is to be considered but that it is not a conclusive factor in determining the extent of loss of wage earning capacity.
Our examination of the record leads us to conclude that the order of the Deputy Commissioner awarding 30% permanent partial disability benefits was adequately supported by competent substantial evidence. The conclusion which we reach is governed by our decision in Nuce v. City of Miami Beach, Fla., 140 5o.2d 303. The factual situations in the instant case and those in Nuce are strongly analogous. We see no reason to apply a different rule of law. *79On the authority of Nuce v. City of Miami Beach, supra, the order of the Full Commission is quashed and the cause is remanded with directions to re-instate the order of the deputy.
It is so' ordered.
DREW, C. J., and THORNAL, O’CONNELL and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
CALDWELL, J., dissents with opinion.
(dissenting).
The claimant is permanently employed by the state under the merit system at a salary greater than that he enjoyed at the time of the alleged injury. It is my view he has not suffered “disability” as defined by F.S. § 440.02(9), F.S.A. I must dissent.
CALDWELL, J.
(dissenting).
The claimant is permanently employed by the state under the merit system at a salary greater than that he enjoyed at the time of the alleged injury. It is my view he has not suffered “disability” as defined by F.S. § 440.02(9), F.S.A. I must dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kuhle v. Kirk, 177 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1965)…en days of the time such payments become due. § 440.20(5) F.S.A. The facts of this case as they relate to the issue of wage earning capacity loss [*330] are remarkably similar to those found in Cianci v. Florida State Beverage Department, Fla.1963, 157 So. 2d 78. We are unable to distinguish this case from that one. The deputy in this case, as did the one in the Cianci case, considered all the existing factors bearing on the claimant’s wage earning capacity. He concluded that despite the fact that claimant…
-
Kurtz v. Wall, 182 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1966)…Bell, 167 So. 2d 844 (Fla.1964); Nuce v. City of Miami Beach, 140 So. 2d 303 (Fla.1962); Fort v. Hood's Dairy, Inc., 143 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1962); Hughes v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 155 So. 2d 135 (Fla.1962); Cianci v. Florida State Beverage Department, 157 So. 2d 78 (Fla.1963). For example, in Nuce v. City of Miami Beach, supra, it is stated: “[4] The point in a case like this is whether one’s disability caused by the industrial accident is a handicap to his securing employment in a competitive labor market f…
-
Woodard v. Dade Cnty. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction, 278 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 1973)…v. Fellows.11 It is so ordered. CARLTON, C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ., concur. ROBERTS and DEKLE, JJ., dissent. . 75 So. 2d 758, 760 (Fla.1954) (Emphasis supplied.) . 140 So. 2d 303 (Fla.1962). . Id. at 306. (Emphasis supplied.) . 157 So. 2d 78 (Fla.1963). . 143 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1962). . 182 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1966). . 116 So. 2d 617 (Fla.1959). . 41 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1949). . 81 So. 2d 503 (Fla.1955). . 55 So. 2d 741 (Fla.1951). . 209 So. 2d 454 (Fla.1968).…
Authorities Cited
- Ball v. Mann, 75 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1954)
- S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. & Fla. Indus. Comm'n v. Bell, 116 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1959)