MEDIA GENERAL CORPORATION AND THE HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP, PETITIONERS,
v.
WILLIAM B. CURRY, SR., PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS UNION, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS 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 addresses whether an employer's knowledge of a preexisting condition affects the apportionment of workers' compensation benefits after successive workplace accidents. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the Industrial Relations Commission's decision, holding that the Cypress Gardens test—requiring consideration of employer knowledge—remained applicable despite 1974 amendments to the workers' compensation statute.
The court reaffirmed that employer knowledge of a preexisting condition remains the key factor in determining whether benefits attributable to a preexisting disease or condition should be deducted or apportioned from the workers' compensation award. The 1974 statutory amendments did not alter the applicability of the Cypress Gardens test. Because the employer had knowledge of the claimant's preexisting condition through observable signs, the apportionment was proper.
[1] An employer's knowledge of a claimant's preexisting condition or disease prior to an industrial accident is the key factor in determining whether benefits attributable to…
[2] Statutory amendments to workmen's compensation law have not altered the rule that employer knowledge of a preexisting condition is determinative of apportionment.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The key to whether benefits attributable to a disease or condition existing prior to the industrial accident should be deducted or apportioned out of the award to claimant in this case, is whether the employer had knowledge of the preexisting condition or disease prior to the accident.”
Establishes the governing legal standard from Cypress Gardens that employer knowledge is the determinative factor for apportionment of workers' compensation benefits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA claimant suffered successive workplace accidents, the last occurring after October 1, 1974, when the workers' compensation law was amended. The clai…
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.
OVERTON, Justice.
This cause is before us to review an order of the Industrial Relations Commission.1 The case concerns the employer’s knowledge of a preexisting condition or disease and its relevance to a determination whether apportionment should apply. We disagree with statements contained in the Commission’s order concerning the applicability of a decision of this Court, but since there was employer knowledge in the instant case, the error does not affect the result, and we therefore affirm the Commission’s order. In upholding the compensation order of the Judge of Industrial Claims, the Industrial Relations Commission stated:
When the issue of employer knowledge is raised with respect to the effect of successive accidents, the last of which occurs after the October 1,1974 effective date of amendments to § 440.49(4), (b), Fla.Stat., knowledge is in our opinion no longer necessarily an adequate distinguishing factor for determining whether or not apportionment will apply. .
The Commission considered Cypress Gardens Citrus Products, Inc. v. Murchison, 240 So. 2d 803 (Fla.1970), but found that case inapplicable because of the revisions of the workmen’s compensation law. In our view, the statutory changes have not affected the applicability of the Cypress Gardens decision, and we reaffirm that holding. The following statement in that case governs the issue in this cause:
The key to whether benefits attributable to a disease or condition existing prior to the industrial accident should be deducted or apportioned out of the award to claimant in this case, is whether the employer had knowledge of the preexisting condition or disease prior to the accident. Obviously the employer had such knowledge here, for the claimant’s preexisting condition was brought to its attention at the time of claimant’s first accident while in its employ.
240 So. 2d at 805.
In the instant case, the Judge of Industrial Claims found that because of the claimant’s limp, the “employer was obviously aware of the fact that [the claimant] had a permanent physical impairment, even though the precise nature of the impairment may not have been obvious.” In our view this was a finding of employer knowledge in accordance with Cypress Gardens and consequently the result of the Industrial Relations Commission decision was correct. Their statement that Cypress Gardens was no longer applicable was error. For the reasons expressed, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, SUNDBERG and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. . We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brockman v. Dade Division-American Hosp. Supply & Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 389 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…). See Thomas v. T & T Trucking, 382 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Chaffee v. Miami Transfer Company, Inc., 288 So. 2d 209 (Fla.1974); Cypress Gardens Citrus Products v. Murchison, 240 So. 2d 803 (Fla.1970); and Media General Corporation v. Curry, 382 So. 2d 686 (Fla.1980). In addition to the foregoing facts, the testimony of appellant and her employer demonstrates that the employer had knowledge of her preexisting condition pri- or to the accident. However, the order contains no finding with respect to the…
-
Flor-A-Crete Indus., Inc. v. Benny A. Drake, 409 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…the restrictions on Drake’s physical activities, the Deputy concluded that he had sustained a permanent partial disability of 25 percent based on a loss of wage-earning capacity. The employer/carrier, relying on Media General Corporation v. Curry, 382 So. 2d 686 (Fla.1980), contends that the Deputy erred in finding merger in the absence of an express finding that the employer had knowledge of claimant’s preexisting disability. In Media General Corporation v. Curry, supra, however, the Supreme Court did not…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Cypress Gardens Citrus Prods., Inc. v. Murchison, 240 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 1970)