CHARLES A. STEWART COMPANY AND THE UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY,
v.
PAUL DOBSON AND THE FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION
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 affirmed an Industrial Commission award of workers' compensation to an employee who suffered total permanent disability from a November 19, 1941 workplace injury while loading citrus fruit, rejecting the employer's contest based on a prior 1938 injury.
The judgment awarding workers' compensation for total permanent disability from the November 1941 accident was affirmed. The court found that competent and satisfactory testimony established the claimant sustained an accident while in the course of employment on November 19, 1941, which resulted in total permanent disability, and that while prior minor injuries existed, they did not prevent the employee from engaging in hard manual labor until the November 1941 injury.
“claimant sustained an accident while in the course of his employment on November 19, 1941, which resulted in his total permanent disability; that while claimant had on two previous occasions sustained injuries while in appellant's employment but the injuries were of such minor nature claimant was able to continuously engage in hard manual labor until the injury on November 19, 1941.”
The court's summary of the circuit judge's findings supporting the award, distinguishing prior minor injuries from the 1941 incident
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePaul Dobson sustained an injury on November 19, 1941, while attempting to lift and load a field box of citrus fruit on a moving truck during his emplo…
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 Permanent Disability cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal brings for review a judgment of the circuit court which approved an award of compensation to appellee by the Industrial Commission.
The circuit court found, as did the Industrial Commission, that appellee sustained an accident on November 19, 1941, while attempting to lift and load a field box of citrus fruit *694on a moving truck. The claim was contested chiefly because there was no accident on November 19, 1941, and also because the disability was directly attributable to claimant’s falling from an orange tree while picking fruit for appellant in April 1938. The circuit judge found from competent and satisfactory testimony that claimant sustained an accident while in the course of his employment'on November 19, 1941, which resulted in his total permanent disability; that while claimant had on two previous occasions sustained injuries while in appellant’s employment but the injuries were of such minor nature claimant was able to continuously engage in hard manual labor until the injury on November 19, 1941.
The medical testimony to sustain the judgment is summarized in the quotation appearing in the well prepared opinion of the circuit judge which is as follows:
“Conclusion: I can not help but believe that the force, of picking up a field box of citrus fruit on November 19, 1941, caused the fracture in question, and his present condition can be attributed to this injury. Now it is possible than an old injury of the eighth dorsal vertebrae has persisted since 1938 and the 1941 injury is an aggravation of this condition but we must remember that at no time, from his injury in 1938, to November 19, 1941, do we have a history of the back giving sufficient trouble to make this man stop work.”
Our conclusion is that the judgment is free of error and the same is affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL and CHAPMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gray v. Emp'rs Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 64 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1952)…s. Thus, in Crawford v. Benrus Market, Fla., 40 So. 2d 889, the claimant was unloading meat from a truck when the weight of the meat pulled him suddenly forward, and he felt something snap in his lower back. And in Charles A. Stewart Co. v. Dobson, 153 Fla. 693, 15 So. 2d 481, the claimant [*652] suffered a-back injury when attempting to pick up and load a field box of citrus fruit on a moving truck. In common parlance, both of these mishaps would certainly be termed “aiccidents,” and this court properly h…
-
Luttrell v. Chevrolet, 625 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…rior injury is of such a nature that the employee is able to continuously engage in manual labor until the occurrence of the subsequent injury, the later E/C will be solely responsible for compensation benefits. See Charles A. Stewart Co. v. Dobson, 153 Fla. 693, 15 So. 2d 481 (1943). The Evans rule has also been applied within the context of division of liability between multiple insurers on the risk at the time of two separate industrial accidents, pursuant to the provisions of Section 440.42(3), Florida…
-
Scott v. Kerr, 156 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 1963)…mployee had suffered a broken arm or a slipped disc it could hardly be contended that the injury was not the product of an industrially related “accident.” Gray v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co., Fla., 64 So. 2d 650; Stewart Co. v. Dobson, 153 Fla. 693, 15 So. 2d 481; Crawford v. Benrus Market, Fla., 40 So. 2d 889. The record having established the occurrence of an industrial accident, the question remains regarding the causal relationship between the accident and the ensuing heart attack. On thi…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence