Mandel v. Pratt
| Decision Date | 13 January 1960 |
| Citation | 117 So.2d 413 |
| Parties | Henry A. MANDEL and/or The American Casualty Company of Reading, Pa., Petitioner, v. James H. PRATT, Phoenix Assurance Company of New York and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. James H. PRATT, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, Henry A. Mandel, Phoenix Assurance Company of New York, and The American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James T. Earle, St. Petersburg, for petitioners Henry A. Mandel and/or American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa.
J. A. Lloyd, Jr., St. Petersburg, for petitioner James H. Pratt.
Lloyd & Jenkins, St. Petersburg, for respondent James H. Pratt.
James T. Earle, St. Petersburg, for American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa.
Paul H. Roney, St. Petersburg, for respondents Henry A. Mandel and Phoenix Assur. Co. of New York.
Burnis T. Coleman and Paul E. Speh, Tallahassee, for respondent Florida Industrial Commission.
The above cases come to this Court upon petitions for certiorari directed to an order of the Florida Industrial Commission affirming an order of the deputy commissioner. The petitions were consolidated and heard together.
The claimant below, James H. Pratt, suffered an injury to his low back and spine on October 25, 1956 while in the course of and arising out of his employment by Henry A. Mandel. He was provided with medical care by the Phoenix Assurance Co. of New York, compensation carrier for the employer at the time of the accident. Claimant again suffered an accident while working for the same employer on February 17, 1958. American Casualty Co., carrier at the time of the second accident, provided medical benefits therefor.
A detailed review of the facts would serve no useful purpose. Suffice it to say, the deputy commissioner, after hearing and considering the evidence, decided the claimant suffered permanent partial disability of 10% of the body as a whole based entirely upon the accident of February 17, 1958. Our examination of the evidence, not for the purpose of making fact findings, but for the purpose of ascertaining whether the findings which have been made were supported by the evidence, reveals that, while the evidence offered was competent on the question of the sole liability of the second carrier, it was not substantial and was not in accord with logic and reason. 1
The findings of fact recited in the order reveal that the deputy commissioner did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. Dreamland Bedding Co.
...for the subsequent injury was determined by deducting the pre-existing impairment from the cumulative disability. In Mandel v. Pratt, Fla.1960, 117 So.2d 413, involving two successive injuries to the same part of the body, the case was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner because he failed t......
-
Structural Systems, Inc. v. Worthen, AZ-4
...between two carriers is proper if both injuries combine to produce the final disability. Larson at 17-181. And see Mandel v. Pratt, 117 So.2d 413 (Fla.1960). In my opinion, the evidence in the case at bar sustains the deputy's finding that the incident which occurred in July of 1983 was mer......
-
Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Webb
...should be allowed. Shores Development, Inc. v. Carver, Fla.1964, 164 So.2d 803; City of Lakeland v. Catinella, supra; and Mandel v. Pratt, Fla.1960, 117 So.2d 413. Pending further proceedings in this cause the claimant should not be denied medical benefits required by either the 1956 or 195......