HARDWARE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND BRITT HARVESTING COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
v.
ERNEST CARDWELL, RESPONDENT
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.
Hardware Mutual Insurance and Britt Harvesting Company challenged a workers' compensation award of 50% permanent partial disability to Ernest Cardwell for a shoulder injury that merged with a preexisting back condition. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the disability award but reversed and remanded because the trial judge failed to properly apportion the disability between the current and prior injuries, which was necessary to determine the employer's liability and right to reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund.
The Court affirmed the 50% permanent partial disability award as supported by competent substantial evidence and found adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, the Court reversed the failure to apportion, holding that a proper apportionment ruling was essential to determine the employer's right to reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, and remanded for the trial judge to determine what portion of the disability was attributable to the earlier accident.
“the determination of the 'excess compensation' which the employer is required to pay must be made at the time the claim for compensation is adjudicated”
Establishes that apportionment of disability between current and preexisting injuries must occur during adjudication to determine employer's liability to the Special Disability Fund.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCardwell sustained a back injury in 1960 that aggravated a preexisting degenerative arthritic condition, resulting in 40% anatomical disability. On Ma…
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 Apportionment Of Disability cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the Order of the Florida Industrial Commission affirming the award of the Judge of Industrial Claims. Petitioner contends: (1) That the Order of the Judge of Industrial Claims does not contain adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law; (2) That the award of 50% permanent partial disability is not supported by competent substantial evidence; and (3) That the Judge of Industrial Claims erred in failing to apportion the award.
We have examined the record and briefs and heard argument of counsel. As to petitioner’s points 1 and 2, supra, we find that the Commission in affirming the Judge of Industrial Claims did not depart from the essential requirements of law.
Petitioner’s point 3, supra, regarding apportionment is based on the following findings of the Judge of Industrial Claims:
“I find that the claimant sustained a previous back injury in 1960, which aggravated an existing degenerative arthritic condition, the combination of the two resulting in an anatomical disability of 40% of the body as a whole. I find that the shoulder injury of March 27, 1967 merged with the claimant’s preexisting impairment, creating a permanent partial disability, based upon a loss of wage earning capacity materially and substantially greater than that which would have resulted from the injury of March 27, 1967 alone. I find that this pre-existing impairment was a hinderance to the claimant’s employment with Britt Harvesting Company and that Britt Harvesting Company was aware of the claimant’s prior back condition. I therefore find that the claimant has sustained a combined disability of 50% of the body as a whole, based upon a loss of wage earning capacity I find that the employer/carrier is responsible for the combined total and that apportionment is not indicated.”
The foregoing statement is inconsistent. The Judge of Industrial Claims acknowledges the presence of facts requiring apportionment but then finds apportionment “not indicated.”
In Stephens v. Winn-Dixie Stores, 201 So.2d 731, 741 (Fla. 1967) we held “the determination of the ‘excess compensation’ which the employer is required to pay must be made at the time the claim for compensation is adjudicated.” A proper ruling on apportionment is essential to petitioner’s right to proceed against the Special Disability Fund for reimbursement. Respondent’s right to compensation in the full amount of the disability, in this case 50% permanent partial, is not affected.
*486The cause must be remanded to the Judge of Industrial Claims to determine what portion of respondent’s disability was attributable to his earlier accident as provided in Stephens v. Winn-Dixie, supra.
Accordingly, the decision of the Full Commission is reversed in part and affirmed in part and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Petition for Attorney’s fees is granted in the amount of $350.00.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, C. J., and THORNAL, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cypress Gardens Citrus Prods., Inc. v. Murchison, 240 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 1970)…employee or his dependents for compensation shall be res judicata, and the special disability trust fund shall be made the party respondent. * * * ” Fla.Stat. § 440.49(4) (g) (1969), F.S.A. . Id. . See, e. g., Hardware Mutual Ins. Co. v. Cardwell, 227 So. 2d 484 (Fla.1969); Genereux v. Caribbean Concessions, Inc., 211 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1968); Hermansen v. Webster Outdoor Advertising Co., 230 So. 2d 145 (Fla.1969), and Stephens v. Winn-Dixie Stores, 201 So. 2d 731, 740 (Fla.1967) (On Rehearing Granted).…
Authorities Cited
- Clyde v. Stephens, 201 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1967)