SCREEN ART POSTERS, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
JOHN FRANCIS QUINN, 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 Florida Supreme Court quashed an order from the Florida Industrial Commission, finding insufficient evidence to support the claim that the claimant's dermatitis was an occupational disease caused by chemicals used at work. The court remanded the case for further proceedings.
No, there was insufficient competent substantial evidence to support the finding that the claimant's dermatitis was an occupational disease caused by his work or that he suffered a loss of earning capacity.
“In the record before us we find no evidence to support the deputy's finding that claimant's dermatitis is an occupational disease within the statutory definition.”
Establishes the primary reason for overturning the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant, Quinn, was awarded compensation for 10% permanent partial disability of one arm and 5% of the other, based on a finding that he suffered…
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 Functional Disability cases and more on FLexlaw
The deputy entered an order, affirmed by the Full Commission, finding that the claimant Quinn suffered an occupational disease, dermatitis, and that such was caused by chemicals used in his work with the petitioner-employer. The deputy awarded compensation for 10% permanent partial disability of one arm and 5'% of the other.
In the record before us we find no evidence to support the deputy’s finding that claimant’s dermatitis is an occupational disease within the statutory definition. There is no competent substantial evidence to show that any of the substances allegedly used by claimant in his work caused the dermatitis. The testimony of both doctors was that there was no functional disability of claimant’s arms. The only limitition is that he should not expose himself to any chemicals which could cause a recurrence of the dermatitis, the chemicals being un*325identified. Moreover, there is no record of evidence that claimant has suffered any loss of capacity to earn wages in any other work which he can perform.
For the foregoing reasons the petition is granted and the order of the Full Commission is quashed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL, C. J., and DREW, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.