Mundy v. McLean

Decision Date26 February 1954
Citation72 So.2d 275
PartiesMUNDY et al. v. McLEAN et al.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

William R. Alvin and Lawrence G. Lally, Miami, for appellants.

Lucille J. Snowden, Miami, and Rodney L. Durrance, Tallahassee, for appellee.

HOBSON, Justice.

Appellee, McLean, a professional plasterer in or near his seventieth year, developed dermatitis on his arms while employed at the trade by appellant Mundy. On or about August 27, 1951, McLean consulted Dr. Carroll, who discharged him after a week of treatment and advised him to resume work, the dermatitis having improved but not having disappeared. For a week or two McLean worked with cement for the Gables Plastering Company without significant change in his condition, his employment with this organization ending on September 26, 1951. From October 4 through October 10, 1951, McLean worked for the Miami Plastering Company in 'brown mortar' and cement; and during this period his skin condition became aggravated to such an extent that on October 16, 1951, he again consulted Dr. Carroll who, after a brief period of treatment which failed to arrest the condition, referred McLean to Dr. Garrard, a skin specialist. Dr. Garrard's treatment was continued until April 29, 1952, at which time the patient was discharged as not being in need of further medical care but cautioned that return to his trade as a plasterer might prove fatal. Appellee was paid compensation and furnished medical care to April 29, 1952 by appellant Mundy through appellant Public National Insurance Company, the insurance carrier. Subsequently appellee filed a claim for additional benefits, and these proceedings followed.

The above presents in substance facts found by the Deputy Commissioner, who awarded compensation for a temporary partial disability, beginning on April 30, 1952 and continuing for the duration of the employee's entitlement under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Further findings which are relevant here are as follows:

'The above named employee, Dugald McLean, is temporarily partially disabled because [of] the sensitizing effects of an occupational disease, to-wit: a contact dermatitis from lime and cement which went on to a generalized exfoliating dermatitis, which caused the skin to peel from his entire body and serum to ooze. Another attack could be fatal.

'In conclusion, it should be pointed out that the sensitivity to lime and cement, which keeps the employee, Dugald McLean, from returning to his employment as a plasterer, originated while the employee was in the employment of Thomas J. Mundy, plastering contractor, just prior to October* 27, 1951. The employee returned to work before he was completely controlled, upon the advice of Dr. Bruce Carroll, but, by hindsight being better than foresight, we now know that the employee should never have been exposed to the materials of his occupation after the first attack beginning on or about August 27, 1951.

* * *

* * *

'The dermatitis and sensitivity developed with the primary contact while this employee was working for the above named employer. He is entitled to temporary partial disability payments as this disability arose out of and in the course of his employment through this occupational disease, and where its effects denied him any employment in the field of his lifetime work * * *.'

On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner's disposition of the case was affirmed by the full commission on authority of ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • McLean v. Mundy
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 22 Junio 1955
    ...ROBERTS, Justice. This is a workmen's compensation case which is making its second appearance before this court. In Mundy v. McLean, Fla., 72 So.2d 275, we reversed an award in claimant's favor against Mundy for compensation for an occupational disease on the ground that Mundy was not the e......
  • Tokyo House, Inc. v. Hsin Chu
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 13 Abril 1992
    ...disease claims in subsequent cases that emphasized the distinction between occupational diseases and other claims. See e.g., Mundy v. McLean, 72 So.2d 275 (Fla.1954). The exposure theory continued to develop apart from occupational disease theory, and in Czepial v. Krohne Roofing Co., 93 So......
  • Wood v. Harry Harmon Insulation, BO-385
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 12 Agosto 1987
    ...the last injurious exposure occurred. Such an interpretation would be contrary to the pronouncements of our Supreme Court in Mundy v. McLean, 72 So.2d 275 (Fla.1954), and Conner v. Riner Plastering Co., 131 So.2d 465 (Fla.1961). In Conner, the court The obvious intent of [section 440.151(5)......
  • Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Crittenden, 91-1274
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 11 Marzo 1992
    ...or occurrence of the disease, which is crucial in this regard. See Conner v. Riner Plastering Co., 131 So.2d 465 (Fla.1961); Mundy v. McLean, 72 So.2d 275 (Fla.1954); see also, Wood v. Harry Harmon Insulation, 511 So.2d 690 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), rev. denied, 520 So.2d 584 The claimant develo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT