Looney v. W & J Const. Co., 44283

• Citation: 289 So.2d 723
• Decision Date: 16 January 1974
• Docket Number: No. 44283,44283
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida
• Parties: James Monroe LOONEY, Petitioner, v. W & J CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al., Respondents.

Page 723

289 So.2d 723

James Monroe LOONEY, Petitioner, v. W & J CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al., Respondents.

No. 44283.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 16, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 5, 1974.

Bill McCabe of Meyers, Mooney & Adler, Orlando, for petitioner.

Edna L. Caruso of Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, D'Aiuto, Dean & Hallowes, West Palm Beach, for respondents.

CARLTON, Chief Justice.

Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Industrial Relations Commission which affirmed a compensation award made by a Judge of Industrial Claims on the bases that the award was supported by competent and substantial evidence and that the Judge of Industrial Claims had made sufficient findings of fact. Florida Constitution, Article V, § 3(b)(3), F.S.A.

The Judge of Industrial Claims found that the claimant in this case (petitioner) sustained a compensable accident when he fell from a flatbed truck to the pavement, 'thereby suffering a contusion of the left kidney, accompanied by hematuria, fractured ribs, contusions of the right leg, and a lumbo-sacral strain or sprain.' The Judge also made the following pertinent findings:

'Approximately two or three days after this industrial accident, while still hospitalized for the injuries sustained in said industrial accident, the claimant suffered a posterior myocardial infarction, and developed other respiratory and/or chest area complaints, variously diagnosed as acute and chronic hyperventilation syndrome, chronic bronchitis, etc. The undersigned Judge of Industrial Claims hereby finds that claimant's posterior myocardial infarction, and related chest complaints, are Not causally related to this industrial accident. . . .

'That as a result of said injury, together with the claimant's subsequent cardiac condition and the disability caused thereby, although not causally related to the industrial accident, that claimant has suffered permanent total disability, suffering a total loss of wage earning capacity. . . .

'Having found above that claimant's cardiac condition, together with the other variously diagnosed chest or respiratory conditions, are not causally related to this industrial accident, that this portion of claimant's permanent total disability award must be apportioned out of the overall award. Therefore, having found that seventy-five percent of claimant's present permanent disability is attributable to his cardiac condition and/or other unrelated chest or respiratory conditions, severty-five percent of this total disability award must be apportioned out of this overall award, and is Not the responsibility or liability of the employer/carrier herein for payment. . . .'

Petitioner argues that the Judge of Industrial Claims erred in finding no causal relationship between his cardiac condition and his industrial accident and, therefore, erred in apportioning from his compensation award sevetny-five percent of his total disability.

After a careful review of...