HENRY A. MANDEL AND/OR THE AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PA., PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES H. PRATT, PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK AND FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS; JAMES H. PRATT, PETITIONER, V. FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, HENRY A. MANDEL, PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, AND THE AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA, 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 a workers' compensation award finding that the deputy commissioner failed to consider whether the claimant's disability resulted from aggravation of a prior work injury, necessitating apportionment of liability between two successive compensation carriers covering different accident dates.
The deputy commissioner's finding that sole liability rested with the second carrier was not supported by substantial evidence and was not in accord with logic and reason. The case must be remanded to consider the possibility of aggravation and to apportion the award between the carriers if warranted.
“the evidence offered was competent on the question of the sole liability of the second carrier, it was not substantial and was not in accord with logic and reason.”
Establishes the standard of review and why the deputy commissioner's finding was improper
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames H. Pratt suffered a low back and spine injury on October 25, 1956 while employed by Henry A. Mandel, with Phoenix Assurance Co. as the compensat…
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 Aggravation Of Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
The above cases come to this Court upon petitions for certiorari directed to an order of the Florida Industrial Commission affirming an order of the deputy commissioner. The petitions were consolidated and heard together.
The claimant below, James H. Pratt, suffered an injury to his low back and spine on October 25, 1956 while in the course of and arising out of his employment by Henry A. Mandel. He was provided with medical care by the Phoenix Assurance Co. of New York, compensation carrier for the employer at the time of the accident. Claimant again suffered an accident while working for the same employer on February 17, 1958. American Casualty Co., carrier at the time of the second accident, provided medical benefits therefor.
A detailed review of the facts would serve no useful purpose. Suffice it to say, the deputy commissioner, after hearing and considering the evidence, decided the claimant suffered permanent partial disability of 10% of the body as a whole based entirely upon the accident of February 17, 1958. Our examination of the evidence, not for the purpose of making fact findings, but for the purpose of ascertaining whether the findings which have been made were supported by the evidence, reveals that, while the evidence offered was competent on the question of the sole liability of the second carrier, it was not substantial and was not in accord with logic and reason.1
The findings of fact recited in the order reveal that the deputy commissioner did not recognize the possibility of aggravation or the resultant necessity for apportionment between the carriers. Petition *415for certiorari is granted to petitioner Henry A. Mandel and/or The American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, and the order of the full commission is quashed with directions to remand the cause to the deputy commissioner for the entry of an order in accordance with these views. On the further consideration of this matter, the deputy commissioner may, in his discretion, require further evidence on the question of apportioning the award between the carriers. The other petitions here are denied,
THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, ROBERTS and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Structural Sys., Inc. v. Worthen, 463 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…here is evidence revealing the existence of a second injury which contributes, to permanent disability, apportionment between two carriers is proper if both injuries combine to produce the final disability. Larson at 17-181. And see Mandel v. Pratt, 117 So. 2d 413 (Fla.1960). In my opinion, the evidence in the case at bar sustains the deputy’s finding that the incident which occurred in July of 1983 was merely a recurrence of the prior injuries sustained in 1980, and not a new injury independently contributi…
-
Iowa Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vernal A. Webb, 174 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1965)…dical benefits and attorney’s fees detract from the necessity for determining whether apportionment should be allowed. Shores Development, Inc. v. Carver, Fla.1964, 164 So. 2d 803; City of Lakeland v. Catinella, supra; and Mandel v. Pratt, Fla.1960, 117 So. 2d 413. Pending further proceedings in this cause the claimant should not be denied medical benefits required by either the 1956 or 1958 episodes. Under Section 440.42(3), F.S.A. either carrier can furnish such benefits and be reimbursed for any sums late…
-
Ulysses C. Young v. Dreamland Bedding Co. & Corporate Grp. Serv., Inc., 133 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1961)…831, wherein the cumulative effect of successive injuries was total loss of use of a hand but compensation for the subsequent injury was determined by deducting the preexisting impairment from the cumulative disability. In Mandel v. Pratt, Fla.1960, 117 So. 2d 413, involving two successive injuries to the same part of the body, the case was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner because he failed to recognize the possibility of aggravation and the resultant necessity for apportionment. In the instant case a rema…
Authorities Cited
- US Cas. Co. v. Md. Cas. Co., 55 So.2d 741 (Fla. 1951)