Mundy v. McLean
Decision Date | 26 February 1954 |
Citation | 72 So.2d 275 |
Parties | MUNDY et al. v. McLEAN et al. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
William R. Alvin and Lawrence G. Lally, Miami, for appellants.
Lucille J. Snowden, Miami, and Rodney L. Durrance, Tallahassee, for appellee.
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:
* * *
* * *
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-
McLean v. Mundy
...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
...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
...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
...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......