Richardson v. Honeywell, Inc.

• Decision Date: 20 April 1966
• Docket Number: No. 34576,34576
• Citation: 188 So.2d 303
• Parties: Phyllis Beverly RICHARDSON, Petitioner, v. HONEYWELL, INC., Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 303

188 So.2d 303

Phyllis Beverly RICHARDSON, Petitioner, v. HONEYWELL, INC., Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 34576.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 20, 1966.

Rehearing Denied June 14, 1966.

Writ of Certiorari to the Florida Industrial Commission.

Hamilton & James, West Palm Beach, and C. DuBose Ausley, of Ausley, Ausley, McMullen, O'Bryan, Michaels & McGehee, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Charles Desmond Crowley, of Crowley & Nolan, Fort Lauderdale, Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date 30 June 1965. After oral argument and consideration of the petition, the record and briefs, we conclude the petition should be and is, therefore, denied.

The petition for attorneys' fees also is denied.

THORNAL, C.J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS and O'CONNELL, JJ., concur.

BARNES, PAUL D., J. (Retired), dissents with opinion.

BARNS, PAUL D., Justice (Retired) (dissenting).

Upon review of an award to the petitioner, Phyllis Beverly Richardson, under Workmen's Compensation Law, the Florida Industrial Commission (with Commissioner Lightsey dissenting) reversed the award to the claimant, whereupon claimant sought review on certiorari by this court. I would grant certiorari and quash order of the Commission.

The Deputy's Finding of Facts was fully accepted by the Commission, but reversed upon the ground that "the deputy erred as a matter of law in concluding that claimant sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment; furthermore, we do not believe, as a matter of law, that claimant suffered an occupational disease."

The Findings of Fact by the Deputy were:

"2. The claimant is a white female, who has been employed by this employer for approximately two years prior to May 4, 1964. For approximately one year prior to May 4, 1964, her job entailed laboratory work where she operated a machine which had two vacuum pedals, each pedal being approximately four inches long. She operated these pedals with both of her feet. She would have to push the pedal forward or back, in a see-saw fashion, and would press down on her heel to turn the vacuum on and press down on her toe to turn the vacuum off. She performed this task approximately five hours each working day, and during her work she used her right foot more than she did her left foot. Although she had been performing this same task for approximately one year prior to May 4, 1964, she had never before had any difficulty or trouble with her ankles or feet.

"3. On about April 29, 1964 she went to see Dr. Charles Moore, with complaints of pain and swelling over the lateral aspect of her right foot. She had first noticed this problem while at work approximately one week prior to April 29, 1964. Upon resuming her work she discovered that the pain and swelling were becoming more severe. She became completely disabled from performing her work after May 4, 1964. She continued under the care and treatment of Dr. Moore. Following treatment of complete bed rest, elastic bandage support and ultra sound therapy, the pain continued to persist and Dr. Moore referred the claimant to Dr. Kenneth Peacock, an orthopedic specialist, for consultation. A diagnosis of capsulitis was made by Dr. Moore, and Dr. Peacock concurred.

"4. Dr. Peacock's impression was that the claimant had, through the use of her ankle at work, irritated the anterior portion of the capsule of the ankle joint at its attachment to the tibia. When her foot failed to respond to hydracortisone shots, he placed it in a cast for about four weeks. The cast also failed to improve the condition and the claimant was admitted to the hospital under the care and treatment of Dr. Peacock. The condition, following her discharge from the hospital, slowly improved. By September 29, 1964 the claimant was able to resume her normal activities and the condition had cleared up. It was recommended by Dr. Peacock that she return to work to determine if the foot could withstand her work activity. As of the time of the hearing she had planned to resume her work with her present employer the following week.

"5. I find that the condition of pain and swelling in the claimant's right ankle, which was diagnosed as capsulitis, was caused by the repeated stretching of and stress to the right ankle while claimant was operating the vacuum pedal with her right foot, while in the course and scope of her employment with this employer. The claimant was totally disabled from May 4, 1964 to September 29, 1964. The repeated use of the vacuum pedal constituted a part of her employment which caused the claimant's disability. I further find that the disease of capsulitis and the resulting disability was caused by an accident, as that term is defined under the Florida Workmen's Compensation Act. There was no pre-existing disease or disability with reference to the claimant's foot and ankle prior to the problem mentioned herein.

"6. I further find that the disease resulting in the claimant's disability was an occupational disease as that term is defined in F.S.A. 440.151. The claimant's condition resulted from the nature of her employment with this employer and was actually contracted while claimant was so engaged. I find that the occupation in which the claimant was engaged at the time the condition was caused, exposed the claimant to a particular hazard of such disease or condition that distinguishes it from the usual run of occupations. The disease that caused the claimant's disability herein was due...