Peltier v. Barbour
| Decision Date | 21 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 34468,34468 |
| Citation | 190 So.2d 569 |
| Parties | Donald PELTIER, Petitioner, Cross-Respondent, v. H. H. BARBOUR, Barbour Enterprises, et al., Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents, Cross-Petitioners. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Donald Peltier suffered a heart attack at about two o'clock in the afternoon on November 12, 1963, while in the employment of the co-respondent, H. H. Barbour, as a truck-driver and business manager. Part of the duties included delivering and repossessing tool sheds and cots.
On the day claimant suffered the heart attack, he was engaged in loading a tool shed on a trailer. An unemployed friend accompanied him to the place and testified at the hearing that it was a clear hot day and that claimant had difficulty in loading the shed inasmuch as '(T)he building was bogged down a little bit in the back in some sand and the winch wasn't pulling it onto the trailer the way it normally would.' Claimant testified it was 'an exceptionally hot day--the sun was real hot,' and that the shed was sitting in sand and 'the runners were even buried.' His friend testified he saw the claimant suddenly throw his arm across his chest and fall to his knees saying that he had a terrible pain. The witness helped him up and after a brief rest claimant finished the loading but was admitted to the hospital the second day thereafter with a diagnosis of a severe heart attack. The employer, Barbour, in testifying as to duties of petitioner, stated, Evidently this was an exaggerated conclusion as these tool sheds weigh some 1100 pounds. At any rate, the exertions described by claimant and the witness show that much more was involved on the day of the injury.
The primary question to be resolved in this Workmen's Compensation case is whether the Full Commission erred in reversing the award entered by the deputy, opinion that there is in the record no competent substantial evidence to sustain the deputy commissioner's findings of fact in regard to unusual strain present on November 12, 1963, when claimant suffered the myocardial infarction.
The deputy found that, 'Upon a consideration of all the evidence * * * the employee, Donald Peltier, was employed by H. H. Barbour, d/b/a Barbour Enterprises on November 12, 1963, and suffered an injury resulting from an accident while in the course of and arising out of said employment.'
The decision of the Full Commission was divided, two holding there was no competent evidence to sustain the findings of fact in regard to unusual exertion, and a contrary view held by one member. A majority of the Commission felt that the testimony in the record did not show unusual strain or overexertion uncommon to the type of work c...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richard E. Mosca & Co., Inc. v. Mosca
...We held that the deputy's finding in this regard was supported by competent substantial evidence. Although the claimant in Peltier v. Barbour, 190 So.2d 569 (Fla.1966), was accustomed to picking up tool sheds at various construction sites, on the day he sustained a heart attack, he was load......