City Ice & Fuel Div. v. Smith
| Citation | 56 So.2d 329 |
| Parties | CITY ICE & FUEL DIVISION et al. v. SMITH. |
| Decision Date | 15 January 1952 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Dixon, DeJarnette & Bradford, Miami, and Wendell C. Heaton, Tallahassee, for appellants.
T. T. Turnbull, Tallahassee, and Irving Hoffman, Hollywood, for appellee.
Appellee, the claimant, an employee of appellant, was on January 12, 1950 involved in a traffic accident in which a passing automobile sideswiped the left front fender of his truck. He suffered a jolt but after an investigation secured another truck from the plant of his employer and finished the day's work. The following day was Friday. It was his day off so he did not go to work. He went to see a doctor who found no evidence of physical injury but gave him a sedative for his nerves. He worked as usual Saturday, Sunday and most of the day Monday. Late Monday his wife found him in a daze or stupor and called the doctor. After observation the doctor called Dr. Anderson, a leading psychiatrist who pronounced his condition as (1) conversion hysteria and (2) possible dementia praecox, catatonic type. He found no evidence of injury by trauma.
Reduced to cuff sleeve English the psychiatrist's diagnosis means that claimant was suffering from an emotional shock and that his trouble was not aggravated by trauma. On the basis of this diagnosis and other evidence, the Deputy Commissioner found that the claimant was not entitled to compensation. The full Commission affirmed the holding of the Deputy Commissioner. On appeal to the Circuit Court the order of the full Commission was reversed. This appeal was prosecuted from the order of the Circuit Court.
The point for determination is whether or not the claimant sustained such an injury by accident as entitles him to compensation within the contemplation of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
The answer to this question turns on the application of subsection (19) of Section 440.02, Florida Statutes 1949, F.S.A., to the evidence adduced. Subsection 19 is as follows:
An examination of the evidence shows no traumatic injury whatever. There is evidence to the effect that claimant was constantly in financial difficulties and could not meet his bills, that on account of this and other stresses he was nervous and under tension much of the time. It was also shown that he claimed to have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fenwick v. Oklahoma State Penitentiary, 69691
...or excitement only ... shall be deemed not to be an injury by accident arising out of the employment...."See also, City Ice & Fuel Div. v. Smith, 56 So.2d 329-30 (Fla.1952). Compensation is allowed if physical trauma causes mental or nervous injury. See e.g., Marci Ann Sportswear v. Busquet......
-
Foxworth v. Florida Indus. Com'n
...the findings of the Deputy Commissioner are conclusive. Smith v. Packer Display, Inc., Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 323; City Ice & Fuel Division v. Smith, Fla.1952, 56 So.2d 329; Four Branches, Inc., v. Oechsner, supra. In each of these cases the evidence was in conflict either as to whether an acci......
-
Chernin v. Progress Service Co.
...there is also proof of injury to the physical structure. Bekelski v. O. F. Neal Co., 141 Neb. 657, 4 N.W.2d 741; City Ice & Fuel Division v. Smith, Fla., 56 So.2d 329; Liscio v. S. Makransky & Sons, 147 Pa.Super. 483, 24 A.2d 136; cf. Hunter v. St. Mary's Natural Gas Co., 122 Pa.Super. 300,......
-
City of Holmes Beach v. Grace
...the employment," and is therefore not compensable under workers' compensation. The earliest case on this subject is City Ice & Fuel Division v. Smith, 56 So.2d 329 (Fla.1952), in which a passing automobile sideswiped the left front fender of the truck which the claimant was driving. The cla......