Dixie Lime & Stone Co. v. Lott, 35836

• Decision Date: 08 March 1967
• Docket Number: No. 35836,35836
• Citation: 196 So.2d 422
• Parties: DIXIE LIME AND STONE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. William D. LOTT and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 422

196 So.2d 422

DIXIE LIME AND STONE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. William D. LOTT and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 35836.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 8, 1967.

Rehearing Denied April 6, 1967.

Wieland & Miller, Orlando, for petitioner.

Musleh & Musleh, Ocala, Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, for respondents.

THOMAS, Acting Chief Justice:

Evidently the controlling question in this controversy is whether or not the claimant Lott was permanently totally disabled by an accident that occurred 1 June 1962. He suffered a fracture of both ankles when he fell from the top of a box car. Temporary total disability benefits were paid to him until 21 September 1963, the date he reached maximum improvement, and permanent partial benefits were awarded him from that date to 26 November 1964 based on the report of an orthopedist that he had undergone a loss of use of his left foot to the extent of 25 per cent. and of his right foot to the extent of 10 per cent. A year later, 14 December 1965, the claimant sought permanent total disability benefits. At an ensuing hearing the deputy commissioner granted this prayer and further ordered reimbursement for travel expenses, future medical care, and attorney's fee of $2500, 'based on the American Standard Mortality Table and the amount which the claimant can reasonably be expected to recover together with the time and effort spent and the skill of the attorney in presenting the claim.'

The contest was somewhat simplified by stipulations about the injury, the average weekly wage, the medical reports, the lack of need for future medical care, and the amounts of compensation paid. At the beginning of the hearing it was stated by claimant's counsel that no further medical care was then needed.

It was further stipulated that in the event of an award the fee of claimant's attorney should be set by the deputy commissioner 'without further proof * * * as to reasonableness * * *.'

So the whole controversy was reduced to a question of claimant's right to permanent total disability and, incidentally, to the propriety of the fee.

The deputy found the claimant entitled to permanent total disability benefits. The Full Commission affirmed, with the chairman, Hon. J. D. Wright, Jr., dissenting.

It is argued here in claimant's behalf that he has, in effect, lost the use of both feet and should, therefore, under F.S.A. Sec. 440.15(1)(b) be declared permanently totally disabled. Of course, if the conclusion of the deputy is based on competent substantial evidence, it should not be disturbed. That rule was announced in United States Casualty Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., Fla., 55 So.2d 741, and has been so often repeated as almost to have become hackneyed. But we are within the exercise of our power when we take a look at the orders of the deputy and Full Commission and the dissenting opinion to determine whether or not competent substantial evidence according with logic and reason supported the claim.

The deputy meticulously recorded the background of the claimant as a farmer, truck driver, bus driver, guard of prisoners and...