Smith v. Packer Displays, Inc.

• Decision Date: 22 September 1953
• Citation: 67 So.2d 323
• Parties: SMITH v. PACKER DISPLAYS, Inc., et al. . Special Division A
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 323

67 So.2d 323

SMITH v. PACKER DISPLAYS, Inc., et al.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

Sept. 22, 1953.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 9, 1953.

Lucille Snowden, Miami, for appellant.

Kinght, Smith & Underwood, Miami, for appellees.

MATHEWS, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Judge affirming the Florida Industrial Commission, which had affirmed the order of a Deputy Commissioner.

The Deputy Commissioner heard the evidence and thereafter made an order, which contained the following:

'From all of the above and foregoing, it does not appear to the undersigned deputy commissioner that said employee had an accident which resulted in an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. Therefore,

'The claim of the above named employee is hereby denied.'

In affirming the Deputy Commissioner the full Commission entered an order, which among other things, contained the following:

'A review of the record reflects substantial testimony in support of the findings of fact and conclusions of law heretofore made by the Deputy Commissioner in his Order, and the Commission herein and hereby adopts such findings of fact and conclusions of law as its own. Wherefore, it is the

'Order of the Florida Industrial Commission that the Order of the Deputy Commissioner dated March 19, 1952, be and the same hereby is affirmed.'

It is strongly urged by the appellant that the case of Gray v. Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co., Fla., 64 So.2d 650, 652, is controlling in this case and that the case at bar should be reversed and remanded because of the holding in Gray v. Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co., supra, which is also known as the 'Bonnie Gray Case.' In that case her claim was denied on the ground that there was no accident preceding the injury. This Court in its opinior stated:

'It is the unexpected and unintentional effect of the strain or exertion that is covered by the Workmen's Compensation Law [F.S.A. § 440.01 et seq.], as an injury 'by accident,' and a literal showing of an 'accident' such as a slip, fall or misstep is not a prerequisite to recovery.'

In the 'Bonnie Gray Case' there was no question that there was an injury which occurred while she was on the job. The primary question decided in that case was that the injury was covered by the word 'accident' in the Workmen's Compensation Law. We have no such question presented in the present case.

In the present case the appellant's claim was denied on conflicting evidence as to the question of whether or not the claimant...