Pyles v. Bridges

• Decision Date: 03 October 1973
• Docket Number: No. 73--43,73--43
• Parties: Houston PYLES, Appellant, v. Barnard BRIDGES et al., Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 394

283 So.2d 394

Houston PYLES, Appellant, v. Barnard BRIDGES et al., Appellees.

No. 73--43.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 3, 1973.

T. G. LaGrone, LaGrone & Baker, Orlando, for appellant.

John J. O'Riorden, Dart, Dickinson, O'Riorden, Gibbons & Quale, Sarasota, for appellee, Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.

HOBSON, Judge.

Appellant Pyles, a recipient of workmen's compensation, appeals an order awarding the workmen's compensation insurance carrier equitable distribution of the amount received by Pyles in the settlement of his suit against a third-party tort-feasor, and denying his motion to take testimony regarding his employer's concurrent negligence.

Pyles was injured when the load on a flat-bed truck being operated by his employer Harry Booth shifted, throwing Pyles to the ground. Pyles was taken to the hospital where he was X-rayed, treated and discharged. The X-rays were read as being normal. It was not until several months later that it was discovered that his X-rays had been inadequate and had not revealed a fracture of the seventh cervical vertebra. He became progressively paraplegic, requiring extensive surgery and years of hospitalization. Pyles was adjudicated a permanent totally disabled paraplegic, and the Florida Supreme Court upheld the Full Industrial Commission's ruling that the injury was related to the industrial accident and requiring the employer/carrier to pay medical expenses and workmen's compensation benefits.

Pyles filed a third-party malpractice action against the hospital, several physicians and their insurance carriers. Pursuant to F.S., § 440.39 F.S.A. the employer's insurance carrier filed a notice of benefits paid under the Florida Workmen's Compensation Act. Pyles settled the malpractice action for $130,000 from which he netted $57,024.80, without the court determining whether the employer was negligent. Pyles noticed for hearing the carrier's claim for workmen's compensation equitable distribution lien. At the same time Pyles filed a motion to take testimony to establish that his injury was the direct result of actual negligence of the employer and therefore such negligence was a bar to any equitable lien distribution to the employer/carrier.

The trial court denied the motion, finding that such testimony was irrelevant in preventing the carrier from obtaining its equitable lien distribution or even as a factor to be considered in determining the amount of the distribution. The carrier was awarded $8,553.72 as its lien entitlement.

We have been unable to find any reported Florida decisions which determined the precise issue involved here. Nor have we found a case which considered the question from any jurisdiction where the statute was exactly like Florida's Workmen's Compensation Law. However, the case of Reeves v. Tepen, 1971, 131 Ill.App.2d 1004, 268 N.E.2d 912, involved a statute somewhat similar to Florida's statute. In that case the employee filed an action against a third-party tortfeasor, and the employer placed a lien against the proceeds of the third-party suit. The suit was settled without determining whether the employer was negligent. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the employer was entitled to reimbursement regardless of negligence, finding that the legislature by the 1959 amendment to the statute clearly indicated its intent to permit reimbursement regardless of the employer's negligence or non-negligence. The Florida statute, ¹ like the amended Illinois statute, by its terms does not preclude a negligent employer or its insurance carrier from...