Royer v. United States Sugar Corp.

• Decision Date: 21 November 1941
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: ROYER v. UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION et al.

4 So.2d 692

148 Fla. 537

ROYER v. UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION et al.

Florida Supreme Court

November 21, 1941

Rehearing Denied Dec. 9, 1941.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hendry County; George W. Whitehurst judge.

W. D Bell, Arcadia, for appellant.

Earnest Lewis & Smith, of West Palm Beach, for appellees.

TERRELL, Justice.

In April, 1937 appellant, while in the employment of appellee, fell from a ladder and received serious personal injuries. The appellee acknowledged the liability before any claim therefor was made and paid all amounts allowed him under the Workman's Compensation Act, Chapter 17481, Acts of 1935, including hospitalization and doctors' bills. In May, 1939, appellant again went to the hospital for treatment and appellee paid his hospitalization and doctors' bills as in the first instance.

In April, 1940, he (appellant) filed his claim with the Florida Industrial Commission for compensation for hernia alleged to have resulted from the fall. This claim was after thorough consideration denied and on appeal to the circuit court, the judgment of the Florida Industrial Commission was affirmed. This appeal is from the latter decree.

Section 19(a) of Chapter 17481, Acts of 1935, provides that compensation for disability shall be barred unless the claim therefor is filed within one year after the time of the injury or within one year after the last payment was made.

It is admitted that the instant claim was not filed within the year from the injury but it is contended that it should be allowed because it was filed within one year from the date the second hospitalization and doctors' bills were paid so the question to be answered is whether or not the payment of the latter bills is 'compensation' to appellant under the terms of the Workman's Compensation Act that would bring his claim within one year from the last payment.

Section 2, Paragraph 10, Chapter 17481, provides that "Compensation' means the money allowance payable to an employee or to his dependents as provided for in this Act'. Section 13 of the said act treats compensation as separate and distinct from doctors' bills and hospitalization. In this case, it was approximately two years between the date of payment of the first and second amounts for hospitalization and doctors' bills and the latter was paid with the understanding that no 'compensation' would be paid.

The pertinent provisions of the Workman's Compensation Act, Sections 13(a) and 15, have not been previously construed by this court, but other courts construing identical or similar acts have held that furnishing medical and hospitalization service is not compensation as contemplated by the act. Twonko v. Rome Brass & Copper Co., 224 N.Y. 263, 120 N.E. 638; Ohio Oil Company v. Industrial Commission, 293 Ill. 46§, 127 N.E. 743; Paolis v. Tower Hill Connellsville Coke Co., 265 Pa. 291, 108 A. 638; Stein v. Packard Motor Car Co., 210 Mich. 374, 178 N.W. 61; Barber v. Estey Organ Co., 100 Vt. 72, 135 A. 1.

It further appears that the applicable provisions of the Florida Workman's...