Bell v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 31926,31926 |
| Citation | 152 So.2d 473 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | Jack R. BELL, Petitioner, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. |
J. Ben Watkins, Truett & Watkins, Franklyn Levenson and Levenson & Thomas, Miami, for petitioner.
Nathan H. Wilson, Jacksonville, and Richard J. Thornton and Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Atkins, Carson & Wahl, Miami, for Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.
Burnis T. Coleman and Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, for Florida Industrial Commission.
In compliance with our first decision, reported at Fla., 116 So.2d 617, this cause was remanded for further proceedings. Additional evidence was received by a different deputy commissioner who entered an order finding that claimant, Jack R. Bell, suffered a 21% 'permanent partial disability of the body as a whole as a result of the impact of the injury on claimant and his diminution of earning capacity.' The employer was ordered to pay compensation in accordance with this finding and to pay claimant's attorneys $600.00 for their services.
Both parties sought review by the Full Commission. The claimant Contended that the award of attorneys' fee was inadequate. The employer contended that the finding of 21% permanent partial disability was not supported by the law or the evidence.
In its order entered on review the Full Commission did not decide the issues raised by the parties. Instead it only determined that the deputy should make a 'finding of fact as to whether or not claimant can reasonably expect to continue in his same employment' and then thereupon reconsider his order in light of such finding. The Full Commission quashed the deputy's order and remanded this cause to him. The claimant seeks review of this order.
In the petition now before us claimant argues that the additional finding of fact which the Full Commission ordered the deputy to make is of no legal significance in determining loss of wage earning capacity and that the record, as it now exists, is adequate to support the deputy's order.
The employer agrees that there is no need for further findings by the deputy and urges that we end this litigation by determining that the record does not support the finding of 21% permanent partial disability.
However it must be remembered that the Full Commission has not yet decided the merits of this cause. All it did in its order was to direct the deputy to make an additional finding of fact and reconsider his order in the light of such additional finding. Obviously, the intent was that the Full Commission would then decide the case on the merits.
Thus the only question which we are permitted to answer here is whether the Full Commission was correct in remanding this cause for the additional finding of fact.
We cannot agree with claimant in his contention that the possibility of continuation of his 'present employment,' as affected by his functional disability, is not a factor to be considered in determining loss of wage earning capacity.
The likelihood of claimant's being able to continue, in the foreseeable future, to perform the requirements of his job, i. e. to compete with other employees, as it is affected by the permanent results of an injury is certainly relevant in the determination of loss of wage earning capacity.
This is particularly true in a case such as this where the claimant is presently employed by the same employer, is performing the same or other work and is receiving the same or greater wages.
As pointed out by Larson in his work on Compensation Law, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. Electronic Products & Engineering Co.
...758 (Fla.1954); Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Bell, 116 So.2d 617 (Fla.1959), 167 So.2d 844 (Fla.1964), and Bell v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 152 So.2d 473 (Fla.1963); Clark v. Western Knapp Engineering Co., 190 So.2d 334 (Fla.1966); Kurtz v. Wall, 182 So.2d 618 (Fla.1966); Parrott ......
-
Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Bell, 33013
...then applied for certiorari to this Court and we quashed the order of the Full Commission and remanded for consideration on the merits. 152 So.2d 473. The Full Commission, after denying Southern Bell's application for oral argument, entered a short form order of affirmance of the Deputy Com......
-
Corral v. McCrory Corp.
...partial disability has failed to consider the variables set out in Ball v. Mann, 75 So.2d 758 (Fla.1954) and Bell v. Southern Bell, Tel. & Tel. Co., 152 So.2d 473 (Fla.1963). Claimant testified on January 16, 1967, that her condition was essentially the same as it had been in 1964. Dr. Neal......
-
Bill Bard Associates, Inc. v. Totten
...future ability to earn, such prediction must be based on the facts which exist at the time the award is made. Bell v. Southern Bell Telephone Company, 152 So.2d 473 (Fla.1963). Here, the claimant was able to continue to work for the employer after the accident, and actually received a signi......