AUGUST BERTELE, PETITIONER,

v.

WILSON ROOFING COMPANY, BITUMINOUS CASUALTY COMPANY AND THE FLORIDA, INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS

DREW, Justice.

The claimant in this workmen’s compensation case received an injury arising out of the course of his employment when he fell from a roof. He suffered a concussion and injuries to his back, ribs and left shoulder, for which he was paid total compensation for a specified period and was then determined to have sustained a 25% permanent partial disability. Subsequently a claim was filed for additional benefits alleging that claimant was permanently and totally disabled and it is this latter claim and the manner of its disposition by the deputy commissioner and full commission which constitutes the basis for these proceedings.

Five doctors testified before the deputy commissioner. Three of the doctors testified that for all practical purposes, claimant was totally disabled.1 One of the carrier’s doctors testified that claimant had developed *9an anxiety reaction but that he could not see how such disability would be related to the injury.2

The record before us, consisting of approximately 130 pages (exclusive of reports of physicians and other exhibits), establishes that claimant visited Dr. Gilbert’s office for treatment approximately 85 times, illustrating generally the extensive treatment for the admittedly compensable injuries.

Apparently disregarding the extensive record, the involved medical questions presented and the almost unanimity of the doctor’s opinions as to the extent of this claimant’s disability, the deputy commissioner, completely ignoring the requirements of this Court with respect to his duties to make adequate findings essential to an intelligent review of his decision,3 entered a compensation order 4 of less than one page consisting primarily of his philosophical reactions to ■claimant’s condition induced to a large extent, as we gather from the record, by the fact that claimant was then receiving social security which at least in theory claimant had paid for.

The provisions of the workmen’s compensation act apply equally to all employees whether they be rich or poor and regardless of the extent of income from other sources. If, in fact, this claimant’s alleged condition is the result of his lack of desire to obtain work because of adequacy of other income, that conclusion should be supported by adequate evidence and sufficient findings in the record to sustain it and, in this case particularly, the reasons for such conclusion in the face of the medical testimony.

The order of the full commission is quashed. This cause is remanded with directions to quash the deputy’s order and to remand the cause to him for the purpose of entering an appropriate order containing *10sufficient findings not only as to the nature and extent of claimant’s disability but also the effect of such disability on his earning capacity.5

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, THORNAL and HOBSON (retired), JJ., concur.