Warwick v. Hudson Pulp & Paper Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 19 November 1974
• Docket Number: No. V--3,V--3
• Citation: 303 So.2d 701
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Parties: Jessie W. WARWICK, Appellant, v. HUDSON PULP & PAPER COMPANY, INC., a corporation, et al., Appellees.

Page 701

303 So.2d 701

Jessie W. WARWICK, Appellant, v. HUDSON PULP & PAPER COMPANY, INC., a corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. V--3.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 19, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 17, 1974.

Neal D. Evans, Jr., and Robert R. Perry, of Evans, Stewart, Parry & Stelogeannis, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Bruce S. Bullock, of Bullock, Sharp & Childs; and Lloyd C. Leemis, of Boyd, Jenerette, Leemis & Staas, Jacksonville, for appellees.

RAWLS, Chief Judge.

The point posed on this appeal by appellant-plaintiff Warwick is:

'When, while acting in a capacity other than employer in the treatment of an original injury to its employee compensable under the Florida Workmen's Compensation Act, the employer is not shielded by such act against common law liability for its negligently causing a new injury or negligently aggravating the original injury.'

This appeal is from a final summary judgment wherein the trial judge found, inter alia, '. . . that the plaintiff's exclusive remedy against said defendant (Hudson Pulp) is under the Florida Workmen's Compensation Act as provided in Sections 440.10 and 440.22, Florida Statutes, said motion be and the same is hereby granted.'

Warwick, during the course of his employment with Hudson, suffered an injury to his back, compensable under the Florida Workmen's Compensation Act. Warwick was initially treated in Hudson's clinic which was staffed by nurses employed by Hudson, which treatment Warwick alleged was negligently performed resulting in serious aggravation of the injury. In resisting Hudson's affirmative defense that workmen's compensation coverage is the exclusive remedy Warwick theorizes that the negligent treatment afforded him by Hudson's clinic did not constitute injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, as Hudson's activities fell within the scope of the 'Dual Capacity Doctrine'.

The Florida Workmen's Compensation Act is a prototype of this jurisdiction's 'no fault' concept of social legislation. The cases are numerous which have held that the immunities of the law inure to those who accept the liabilities imposed therein. One of the primary obligations and responsibilities of the employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act is to provide medical treatment to employees. ¹ This jurisdiction has held that medical treatment which aggravates an original injury, whether it be negligent or not, is compensable under the Florida law. ² Abbenante v. United Parcel Service, Inc., ³ concerned the claimant who had suffered a cut finger during the course of his employment. Medical treatment included injections by a physician of penicillin and tetanus anti-toxin. On the next day the claimant suffered an occlusion of the left internal corotid artery producing a cerebral injury. After reviewing the record, which included medical testimony that the injection of the drugs probably was a cause and effect between these events (cut finger and stroke), the court awarded claimant permanent total disability. ⁴ Thus, it appears that the Florida rule is that when an injury necessitates treatment and the treatment aggravates the original injury, such aggravation is compensable. It necessarily follows that if the employer is held liable as a result of the contract dictated by the statutory enactment, such employer is entitled to the immunity of common law liability prescribed therein. The rationale of the Second District Court of Appeal in Allen v. Employers Service Corporation ⁵ is applicable, viz:

'. . . In truth, our workmen's compensation program imposes liability on employers for compensation benefits to injured employees regardless of whether the employer performs his statutory duties to maintain...