FRED KIRKMAN, PETITIONER,
v.
OWENS-ILLINOIS FOREST PRODUCTS DIVISION, AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY-COMPANY AND 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 court denied the petition for writ of certiorari, affirming the Full Commission's order, because the Commission reached the correct result despite an erroneous reason for denying the Special Disability Fund's applicability.
A deputy found a claimant permanently and totally disabled, refused to apportion disability between two accidents, and applied the Special Disability …
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 Special Disability Fund cases and more on FLexlaw
We have considered the petition for writ •of certiorari, the record and the briefs in this cause. We find that oral 'argument would serve no useful purpose. It is dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 31 F.S.A,
The deputy found the claimant-petitioner to be permanently :and totally disabled and also refused to apportion the disability between the two accidents leading to this •claim and an earlier one. He held the provisions of the Special Disability Fund applicable. The Full Commission reversed this portion of the deputy’s order, saying that the record did not support a finding of permanent total disability and further, that in fixing extent of disability the deputy should, not have considered the -I960 injury, but only the 1964 accidents. The •commission held the deputy erred in assigning any portion of the disability to the Special Disability Fund. It remanded the cause for further proceedings.
The Full Commission correctly found that the record does not support a finding of permanent total disability. While the commission is right in holding that the Special Disability Fund is not applicable under the facts of this case the reason given for the holding is erroneous. The record does not reveal that claimant was suffering any residual disability from the 1960 accident although it may have left him predisposed to further injury to his back. For the reasons expressed in our recent opinion in Stephens v. Winn Dixie, et al., Case # 34,131, filed January 25, 1967, apportionment under Sec. 440.15(5) (c) is not indicated and there would be no cause for resort to the Special Disability Fund.
Because the Full Commission reached the correct result in its order the petition for certiorari and the petition for attorney’s fees are both denied.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL, C. J., and DREW, O’CON-NELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
THOMAS, ROBERTS , and CALDWELL, JJ., agree to conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. & City of Hialeah v. Special Disability Fund & the Indus. Relations Comm'n, 249 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1971)…er of law, no basis for finding that any “excess” has been provided the employee by either carrier. The Commission cites in support Stephens v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., Fla., 201 So. 2d 731; Kirkman v. Owens-Illinois Forests Products Division, Fla., 197 So. 2d 822; Evans v. Florida Industrial Commission, Fla., 196 So. 2d 748, and Cypress Gardens Citrus Products, Inc. v. Murchison, Fla., 240 So. 2d 803. We do not find that the Commission’s conclusions are correct as a matter of law. Each case against the Fund…